218 the penal ideology as it was represented in the Enlightenment ideology never reached Finland; rather, the ideas born of the Enlightenment movement were adopted in Finland as part of the teachings of the Classical School. Second, the central features of importance to the law of proof are shared by both the Enlightenment thinkers and Classical criminalists. In the following, we will briefly sketch an outline of the emergence of classical criminal law in Finland. After that, we will see what relation criminal law had to the lawof proof. According to Utriainen, the Finnish criminalists of the early 1800s were already well aware of the international currents in their field. The first Finnish criminalist to present a modern comprehensive theory of the structure of crime was W. G. Lagus, although he, like Feuerbach, viewed crime as a social whole, without yet dividing it into objective and subjective parts. To him, objective and subjective circumstances, were viewpoints from which the criminal deed could be inspected. Unlike his followers, however, Lagus did not divide the criminal deed into two constitutive parts, the objective and the subjective."^' In the viewof K. G. Ehrström(thesis of 1859, “OmPrincipen för Fängelsestraffets Ordnande”) and the contemporary German juristic writing (Köstlin and Wirth), the objective and subjective sides of crime were to be clearly distinguished."*- In Ehrstrbm’s construction, the objective side of the crime was based on the breach of justice and the subjective side on the wrongdoer’s guilt. The guilt required free will; because the wrongdoer knew that his or her action would cause a wrong, the deed could be imputed to him {Zurechnung). The guilt was the basis of the subjective determination of the sentence. The objective basis of sentencing had to do with the dangerousness and harmfulness of the crime. The division into subjective and objective sides of the crime was also clear to Johan Philip Palmén Quridisk Handbok för medborgerlig bildning 1859): “Every crime, whether it lead to a breach of someone’s right or not, shall always be understood fromtwo different points of view, an outer or objective one, and an inner or subjective one. Fromthe objective point of view an outer deed violating criminal lawis required here. Besides the above-mentioned c^bjective qualities certain subjective conditions are required as well in order for a deed or omission to be able to be to characterized as a crime; or, in other words, a deed which violates law when observed externally must also be unlawful from the inner point of view, with respect to the actor’s will.”'*'* (italics by J. Ph. Palmén) by the Enlightenment; whereas the general preventive ideology of the Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Beccaria had been a reaction to the theocratic theory of just deserts, classical criminal law came to pose itself as an alternative to the utilitarist theories of the Enlightenment. See Backman 1976 pp. 118-119. *' Utriainen 1984 p. 27. *- Ibid. p. 28. Ehrström 1859 pp. 84-85. *■* Palmén 1859 pp. 47-49. “Elvarje brott, ehvad det medförer rättskränkning eller icke, bör städse uppfattas från tvänne särskilda synpunkter, en yttre eller objektiv, och en inre eller subjektiv.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=