260 The modernization of the Finnish law of proof took decisive and irreversible steps in the 1850s and 1860s. After those decades, it was clear that no return to a binding systemof proof was possible, nor were any attempts made in that direction. As the last remnants of the medieval Roman-canon lawof proof were cleansed from the Finnish law of proof, the statutory changes also began, finally culminating in the change of the PS in 1948. But the law of proof is in a constant state of flux: a whole genre of presentday legal literature dedicates itself to doctrinal definitions, clarifications, and suggestions of what free evaluation is and ought to be.^ Do these theories imply a return to a rule-bound theory of proof of the type that was abandoned in the nineteenth century? Hardly, for they stemfroma thoroughly different social and political situation. In the Ständestaat, the statutory theory of proof persisted as a means of the political elite to control the judiciary. The new theories of evidence, on the contrary, arise froma democratic society where enclaves of unlimited judicial discretion are, in principle, deemed illegitimate and undesirable. If the Roman-canon rules of proof implemented control from above, then the newdoctrinal restrictions on evidence evaluation imply democratic ideals. ^ See e.g. Zahle 1976, Walter 1979, Jonkka 1991, Klami 1995, and Hatakka 1995.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=