252 these arguments gained in force as the century advanced in the writings of Forsman and Serlachius.^o Despite the differences between these three criminalists, one common denominator remains: the wish to expressis verbis treat criminal lawas a tool to actively guide society. Together with this development, a modernization of the law of proof took place. In charge of it were legal professionals, representatives of the same profession that had organized the administration and were introducing classical criminal lawinto Finland. Fromthis point of view, the emergence of free evalnation of evidence fits neatly into the picture of a modernizing, bureaucratizing state aiming at increasing efficacy. With the introduction of the principles of classical criminal law and with the help of free evaluation of proof, Finnish penal control was, albeit gradually and still far from completely, ushered into the modern era in the second half of the 1800s. The premodern penal control had been transformed into a liberal, bourgeois one. Whereas the old consequence-oriented law had largely ignored questions of personal guilt and been content to work at the mercy of available evidence, the modern law penetrated deep into the soul of the offender with its new structuring of crime and its novel concept of evidence, allowing for supposedly more efficient social guiding mechanisms to take root. 5° As his ideas on the theories of punishment were concerned, Forsman basically followed the Classical School, although he was not completely against the ideas of the competing Sociological School. It was, then, Serlachius who actually introduced positivist criminal law thinking in Finland; however, Serlachius’s theoretical apparatus included important elements of the Classical School as well. Pihlajamaki 1991 (a) pp. 44—49.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=