Smolej finnish po's 270313


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Finnish Act on the Restraining Order
  • Smolej finnish po's 270313

    1. 1. Protection orders in Finland: observedchallenges and future developments Dr. Mirka Smolej Research FellowScandinavian Research Council for Criminology (NSfK) Helsinki, Finland
    2. 2. Outline of the presentation Background of the Finnish Protection orders Do Finnish protection orders (PO’s) work in violence prevention? Some observed problems How to do it better?
    3. 3. Finnish Act on the Restraining Order”The purpose of the Act on the Restraining Order is toprevent crimes and to improve the possibilities tointerfere with severe harassment. A restraining ordermeans that in order to protect the life, health, freedomor peace of a person, another person may be orderednot to contact him/her. A restraining order may beimposed also when the person protected by the orderand the person on whom the restraining order isimposed live in the same household.”
    4. 4. Types of PO’s Restraining order since 1999 Barring order since 2005 Both can be issued as extended or temporary Application either from police or from court Also a prosecuting, police or social service authority may apply for the order if the person threatened is too afraid or unable to do it himself/herself (rarely used) Finnish PO’s are civil-criminal hybrid orders blurring the division between criminal and civil law
    5. 5. The background of Finnish1. PO’s History Major revisions in criminal law in the 1990s Global trend (and pressure?)2. Politics and ideology Concern over violence against women Goal to prevent future violence and to improve the position of vulnerable groups Barring order: the victim’s right to stay at home Mean to “calm things down” so that the protected can re-build his/her life3. Situational crime prevention Identifying high risk cases of violence Reducing situations in which offending is more likely than in others Tool in enabling a future with non-offending life
    6. 6. Number of PO’s issued annually in Extremely hard to attain proper numbers Finland?  ”We can produce which ever statistics we like!” Overlapping databases and registers Information automatically deleted every two years Lack of education and training (both police and courts) Poor practises in data entry (both police and courts)  Amount of PO’s applied from district courts in 2010: total of 3202, of which 126 barring orders
    7. 7. Applied and issued barring orders in Finland 2005 and 2006 Contact to the police temporary barring order application to district court (N=166) (N=202 ) D I S T R I C T C O U R T P R O C E S S (N=368) cancelled dismissed issued issued cancelled, dismissed, rejected rejected (N= 91 ) (N= 92 ) (N= 110 ) temporary barring order ”regular” domestic barring order (N= 75 ) (N= 183)
    8. 8. Can a piece of paper stop abullet? Thorough evaluations on PO’s are rare and have mixed findings On the average PO’s do reduce violence (Häkkänen et al, 2003) PO’s can provoke and lead to increased violence, though the risk can be reduced by appropriate handling of cases (Rantala et. al, 2008) Very high homicide risk in a follow-up study of men who were recipients of protection orders during the first year the PO act was in force (Stoat et. al 2005) The introduction of the barring order did not reduce the amount of female homicide victims  Protection orders CAN deter abuse to some extent butthey are not sufficient measures in terms of providing protectionfrom continued abuse (Klein 1996).
    9. 9. Assaults committed by persons with a barringorder one year before and after (Rantala et. al 2008)
    10. 10. However, according toRantala et. al (2008)data… Most evicted persons suffered from multiple problems Alcoholism, mental health problems, extensive criminal records  What happens when you throw such people out to the streets? increased frequency of being taken into police custody from public places, violent victimisation, increase in petty thefts, suicides, displacement effects, intensified criminal life-styles…  Reinforcement of marginalisation by PO?
    11. 11. Some methodological issues The problem of hidden crime in register-based studies For ethical reasons impossible to conduct a survey examining the experiences of the protected The quality of process implementation varies in Finland – both among police officers as well as court judges There is no single key to success: multiple factors can have effects, people involved come from different backgrounds and circumstances; impossible to generalise effects or outcomesWhat about some of the observed problems with PO’s?
    12. 12. Large percentage ofwithdrawn applications (1/2) Less than half of restraining applications are granted In 2010, the number of denied applications was around 1600, and in about half of these cases the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the application. Legal psychologist told the paper that the bar is set too high in the Finnish legal system for filing restraining orders, with many lawyers and judges fearing that granting an order will in many cases only provoke more violence from the offending party. (Turun Sanomat 17 April 2012)
    13. 13. Large percentage ofwithdrawn applications (2/2) Similar findings by Rantala et. al (2008) regarding barring orders In many cases the cancellation was caused by pressure or threats from the other party Violence may have continued, although concealed ”After thinking the issue through she states that after all, she herself probably has cut herself while being heavily under the influence of alcohol and drugs. She says she has cut herself various times before.” (excerpt from police report)
    14. 14. PO’s limits to preventviolence kills ex-girlfriend thenA Kosovon gunmanfour people at Finland mall before committinga suicideA gunman went on a New Years Eve shootingrampage killing his ex-girlfriend and fourworkers at a shopping centre before turning thegun on himself.The ex-girlfriend, a Finnish woman born in1967, also worked at the mall and had takenout a restraining order against him, police said.(Daily Mail 2 January 2010)
    15. 15. PO’s limits to prevent violenceVantaa double-murder linked to The police had issued a temporary restraining order on him, but the orderruthless assault in Kotka was never enforced, as the mother did not show up for the district courtA 27-year old man is suspected of the hearing, police reveals.”murders of his 55-year-old mother and 26- (Helsinki Times 3 January 2013)year-old girlfriend in a flat in Vantaa.Both victims were killed in brutal fashion withan edged weapon on 10 December, a daybefore the suspect ruthlessly assaulted a 55-year-old man at the Kotka bus station, thepolice believe.The suspect has a prior criminal record, andhad threatened and assaulted hismother before.
    16. 16. Preventing, defining and monitoring breachesAbusive ex-partners hard to deterAccording to the police, of the approximately200 restraining orders imposed in the Helsinkiregion last year over half have been violated.Helena and her four children had only been intheir new home a week when her ex-husbandcame to the door in the night and tried to forcehis way in, shouting and breaking objects in theyard.The same thing happened again the next night,and on both occasions the ex-husbandmanaged to evade the police before they (Helsinki Times 26 January 2012)arrived on the scene.
    17. 17. Preventing, defining and monitoring breaches : the case of Matti and Liisa “Matti had called Liisa and asked her to go on a trip to Tallinn with him. Liisa went to reserve the tickets together with Matti. Later Matti called and told he was waiting for Liisa outside because the plan was to go to Tallinn. Liisa says she then told Matti she doesn’t want to go on a trip. Liisa states that after that Matti had stayed and hanged-around at Liisa’s yard.” ”Matti admits he has breached the restraining order. He states that Liisa called her in the afternoon and asked him to go shop for some groceries.”
    18. 18. Preventing, defining and monitoring breaches : the case of Matti and Liisa”The police has had several similar assignments to theapartment. According to Matti, Liisa often invites him to herflat. Once again, there are no implications of a breaking andentering.””Neighbour Simo tells he has often called the police eitherbecause Liisa has asked him herself or because there havebeen cries of help from the apartment. Simo tells that accordingto his understanding Liisa lets Matti voluntarily to her flat. Simodoes not have the impression that Matti has forced himself intothe apartment. Simo says he has mentioned about this to Liisaand told her that she doesn’t have to let Matti in. Liisa hasreplied: ”You know, love is sometimes complicated”.
    19. 19. Law-drafting and the barringorder:the idea of rational individuals(1/2)In my view, analysing harms did not reach a veryconcrete level, but it was known that the weakness isthat in many cases the downhill [of the evicted] willbecome even steeper. That it makes them fall flat,become abandoned. I don’t remember suicide as aword but they take the road of ruination, or evenworse. All we could see was that maybe somebrochures would make these men acquire help.That we did discuss. But on the other hand, maybesomeone would calm down. (Law drafter A.)
    20. 20. Law-drafting and the barringorder:the idea of rational individuals(2/2)The values were such that this will be carried outno matter what. We thought that the preconditionswould be so harsh that the law would be rarelyimplemented and only in serious cases. Maybe wealso thought that it is simply a question of choice:either one hits the road. So is it the one who isbattered or the batterer? In this model we thought itis better that it is the batterer. (Lawdrafter B.)
    21. 21. Four examples of observedproblems with PO’s Large percentage of withdrawn applications Limitations to prevent violence Problems in preventing, defining and monitoring breaches Poor understanding of the lives and problems of the target group  the idea of rational individuals
    22. 22. How to do it better? Better co-ordination between the support network and the judicial process Re-formulation of regulations and professional directions Harmonising the procedures regarding children Identifying special needs of other vulnerable groups
    23. 23. How to do it better? Developing realistic interventions: MARAC, house-calls after the PO is in force, social support, treatment possibilities… Electronic monitoring in most serious cases? Criminalisation of unwanted communication and stalking?