198 acquittals are included in the sample, several appear in the second half of the century (tables 1, 2). In the 28 cases without full proof in 1855-1860 (tables 10—11), the lower courts produced acquittals in two cases, a high court in one and the JDS not even once, but already in the years 1865-1875 (tables 12—14) more acquittals appear: out of 35 cases with less than the statutory full proof, there was one acquittal in the lower courts and three in both the high courts and the JDS. In 1880—1900 the JDS produced five, the high courts three, and the lower court two acquittals in the 43 cases without full proof (tables 15-19). Insofar as convictions with less than full proof are concerned, out of 125 decisions made in the 116 cases where less than full proof existed in the case material of 1855—1900, lower courts decided to convict the accused 102 times, high courts 89 times, and theJDS 88 times (table 2). When a temporal element is ineluded, the abolition of the legal systemof proof becomes even more apparent. In 1855 and 1860, each court instance made 33 decisions in the 28 cases without full proof (tables 10, 11). A lower court reached a conviction 22 times, while a high court and theJDS both decided to convict the accused 18 times. However, out of the 43 cases of 1880-1900, the lower courts voted for conviction in 38, the high courts in 34 cases and the JDS in 32 cases (tables 15-19). The statistical study shows clearly, thus, that during the 1850s it became the rule, not the exception, to convict in cases of homicide on pure circumstantial evidence. At least fromthe 1860s onwards, the courts increasingly came to see acquittal and conviction as exclusive alternatives. As the second half of the century advances, cases appear in which the courts hover between the extremes on the continuumof decisional categories; in other words, between acquittal and conviction. The decisions change between judicial instances, so that an acquittal is changed to conviction or vice versa, completely disregarding the other alternatives. On the 27th of December, 1859, Elias Haukka had been killed by an injurv to his head. It was unclear whether the death had been caused by a blow with a wooden stick administered by the principal accused, Johan Andersson Parana, or by the victim hitting his head on the ground when he fell. The Hundred Court of Yliveteli freed the accused, w’hile the upper instances convicted him (Hundred Court of Yliveteli etc.. May 15, 1860; High Court of Vaasa, August 8, 1860; theJDS, October 25, 1860).^ Two defendants, Kaarle Heikki Koivuniemi and Henriika Willentytär Lehtinen, were charged with drowning Koivuniemi’s wife, Mariana Juhontytär Koivuniemi, in a hole in the ice while the victimand Henriika Lehtinen were washing laundry on the ice of a lake on March 14, 1900. The defendants denied the charges, although ample evidence existed against them. The lower court sentenced both defendants to life imprisonment (May 25, 1900); the upper courts acquitted them (High Court of Turku, June 14, 1901; theJDS, April 12, 1902).•* 3 Pag 387/1860. * Pag 311/1901. The JDS voted 6—1, with the minority voting for a conditional acquittal. See also Jouppi, pag. 224/1865; Ikäheimonen, pag. 476-1885; Björklin, pag. 500/1895; and Pennanen, pag. 501/1895.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=