216 criminal deed (Tatstrafrecht). As I have suggested already, this last point has an intimate connection to the lawof proof. Compared to premodern criminal law, modern criminal law is inciividualizing and subject-centered. In the premodern law, guilt was taken into consideration only as far as it was shown by externally observable facts.Modern criminal law, on the contrary, takes internal factors, such as the extent and direction of the criminal intention, into consideration. The individualization of modern criminal law thus imposed new requirements on the systemof sanctions as well. If the sanctions were to be individually determined and proportionate not only to the harmful consequences of the criminal deed but also to the degree of the criminal will, the judge had to have a variety of different sanctional possibilities at his disposal. These requirements were met by the prison sentence, which could be conveniently proportioned according to the criteria mentioned above. Furthermore, in carder to be morally blamed and punished, the wrongdoer must have at least been able to be aware of the consequences of his deed; this is how the idea of codification is related to the other questions. In the historv of Finnish criminal law in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, three principal phases can be distinguished. The first two thirds of the nineteenth century were the era of premodern criminal law, superseded by the ideology of classical criminal law from the 1860s and 1870s onwards. Around the turn of the century, a third current, that of the sociological school of criminal law, appeared on the scene. Fromthe point of view of the law of proof, the first change was more important; in fact, the ideological rupture that the sociological school of criminal law represented was far less complete, and can hardly be said to have influenced the law of proof in Finland. For the present study, the appearance of the positivist currents of penal law is, thus, not of primary importance. Instead, I shall in this chapter concentrate on the transition frompremodern to classical thinking in criminal law. Naturally, no all-encompassing treatment of either one, or a thorough interpretation of the development of Finnish criminal law, is possible in this context. Instead, I will try to establish the essential features that typify the transition from premodern to modern criminal law regarding the theories of the criminal deed. This transformation is then set in the context of the change that took place in the realmof the lawof proof. Classical criminal law, like the continental jury systemand the theory of free evaluation of proof, has its roots in Enlightenment thinking. In the eighteenth century. Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Beccaria, Diderot, and Jancourt formulated the basic modernizing requirements. They See Kmtner 1935 pp. 22-28; Klami 1989 pp. 196-197. The sociological criminal law thinking gained only a limited acceptance in Finland, see Pihlajamäki 1991 (a).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=