Conclusions The essence of this study develops an argument about the preconditions of the statutory theory of proof and the disappearance of those preconditions. I have wished to find out, firstly, when the free evaluation of evidence took over in the Finnish criminal procedure. Secondly, I have sought to explain when the transformation of the Finnish law of proof occurred, and why it assumed the particular mode it did. In order to answer these questions, I have attempted to clarify on what political, social, and philosophical premises the point of departure, the legal theory of proof, rested in general and especially in the Finland of the early nineteenth century, and in what way those basic premises began to weaken. The change was, however, not only about the breakup of the old Roman-canon lawof proof; in Finland, as in most' of the Western world, there were also forces that actively favored and even demanded the abolition of binding rules of proof. Just as there were forces that pushed the old theory of proof aside, so there were others that drew the new one in to replace it. The statutory theory of proof was created in the twelfth century by the legists and canonists to serve the needs of the centralizing ecclesiastic and secular governments. Rigid and binding, the theory served the interests of rulers who wanted the decisions of their judiciary to be controllable and revisable. Insofar as the establishment of facts was concerned, the legal theory of proof sought to bind the judiciary’s hands in advance. Irrational modes of proof did not meet these requirements. Furthermore, as the statutory theory of proof minimized judiciary’s discretionary power, the theory seemed legitimate. The legal theory of proof was, moreover, the first juridical theory of proof sensu stricto. As with all Roman-canon law, mastering the rather complex rules of proof nowgaining ground demanded the skills of university-trained jurists. Thus, a connection between centralizing political power, the academically educated legal professional, and the statutory theory of proof was established and seen to emerge all over Europe and some of its colonies - from Italy to Russia, from Sweden to South America - frt^m the twelfth to the eighteenth century. Philosophically, like the rest of ius commune, the legal theory of proof had been organized along scholastic principles. As these principles suffered a fatal blow fromthe side of rationalism with the coming of modern times, the theory of legal proof began to collapse as well. This meant that various ways of getting ' The Anglo-Amcric.in world moved to the opposite direction, creating its law of proof in the nineteenth centurv.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=