Editorial | A line should be found for imprisoning those suspected of murder

KIn the past week, legal politics has been talked about in public for a long time, when Robin Tino Kristian Kivistö, who was sentenced to ten years in prison for the murder of a 15-year-old boy, received a bunch of new sentences on Monday. Kivistö had committed some of these crimes after the manslaughter verdict, as the court had not imprisoned him when sentencing.

The case brought to the surface by the Supreme Court (KKO) in March of the new policy, according to which the seriousness of the suspected crime alone is no longer sufficient for imprisonment in the district court. In addition to that, there must be more specific grounds, such as the threat of continuing criminal activity or fleeing. The KKO based its decision, among other things, on the decision practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

Kivistö killed a 15-year-old boy last New Year’s in Pori by shooting him in the head. He was soon caught and imprisoned, but as a result of the KKO’s new policy, he was released in April to await trial. Prosecutor told Yle in the summerthat there were no justifications required by the new policy to demand the continuation of imprisonment. Immediate arrest and transportation to prison were not required even after the verdict, so the convicted person was allowed to walk free.

According to a recent report by HS The KKO’s policy has clearly changed the methods of operation, and as a result, several suspects of homicides have been freed to await trial. Of course, that’s how it should be in a rule of law, KKO’s guidelines must guide the activities.

In terms of the presumption of innocence, there are many positives in the change. However, the problem is that there is no established new practice yet. Now everything depends on the reasoning ability and legal imagination of the investigation managers and prosecutors, as well as how the district courts interpret the KKO’s policy.

There were reasons for KKO’s policy. However, one must be careful that the interpretations do not become too broad. Previous quasi-automatic imprisonment may not be replaced by quasi-automatic release. There have already been cases in the public where the Court of Appeal has had to quickly overturn the release of those suspected of very serious crimes. Hopefully, a common line will begin to take shape.

The editorials are HS’s positions on a current topic. The articles are prepared by HS’s editorial department, and they reflect the journal principle line.