NCJ Number
216880
Date Published
2006
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This chapter analyzes trends in juvenile justice in Finland.
Abstract
Finland, unlike other most other countries around the world, has managed to significantly reduce its rates of incarceration, including juvenile incarceration. In Finland, young offenders are dealt with by two systems--the child welfare system and the criminal justice system. Under the child welfare system, the best interests of the child prevail and all interventions are supportive. The criminal justice system on the other hand can dispose of offenders aged 15 years and up and generally makes no distinction between offenders of different ages. However, both of these justice systems are couched within a larger “humane neo-classicism” ideology within Finland that has sought to radically reduce incarceration rates. Prison and crime rates between 1950 and 2000 are reviewed, which illustrate that a significant drop in incarceration rates were not accompanied by a similar rise in crime rates. The child welfare and treatment systems were similarly reformed in the 1960s through the 1980s, when the rhetoric of the “best interest of the child” was combined with family centered approaches and “right-based” arguments. Large state-run institutions were replaced by small residential units and the majority of placements remained voluntary. The author examines how Finland came to adopt such tolerant juvenile justice policies at the same time other countries moved toward increasing punitiveness. Finland’s ideological and political background is reviewed, which have both informed by the prevailing cultural belief that crime is predominantly a social problem that should be counteracted by social reform rather than offender repression. Juvenile justice in Finland today defines various routes of diversion that include non-prosecution and waiver of punishments in court. Despite the tolerance evident in Finland’s juvenile justice polices, the author warns that current sentiments threaten to move the country closer to a punitive model of juvenile justice. Figures, tables, footnotes, references