The threatening duo forced the little brother to shoot his big brother because of drug debts. The little brother was sentenced to five years in prison for the death, but the duo were convicted of inciting murder and aiding and abetting murder.
Supreme The Supreme Court of Finland (KKO) has upheld the penalties for incitement and aiding and abetting the murder in Oulu. The threatening duo forced the man to shoot his brother to death in the Ice of Oulu in October 2018.
The shooting of his big brother was sentenced to five years in prison from death. This judgment remained final.
The Court of Appeals handed down far harsher sentences to the men who forced the brothers into gravel and ordered the little brother to shoot his big brother. One of them was convicted of inciting murder and the other of aiding and abetting murder.
The KKO investigated whether they could be convicted of these crimes when the shooter was convicted only of killing.
Death is the mildest of all homicides, while murder is even more serious than killing.
Lower the courts reached different lines in the matter. According to the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal, the series of events involved murder and not murder, as the Oulu District Court had held.
That’s why one of the men who forced the little brother, 26 years old Harri Henrik Hietamäki, was sentenced to life imprisonment for inciting murder, among other things.
Another man, 26 years old Jimmy Johannes Leinosen, the judgment was lowered in the Court of Appeal. He was sentenced to nine years and nine months in prison for aiding and abetting murder. In the district court, the sentence had been a little over ten years, including incitement to murder.
KKO stated that Hietamäki and Leinonen ‘s involvement in the murder presupposes that the brother’ s act fulfills the characteristics of murder. However, it is not required that the murder be concretely attributed to the little brother.
The KKO referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal, according to which the act was directed at a person in a helpless state, the manner of execution had execution-like features and the big brother was shot in terror when he was shot. Therefore, the killing had been done in a particularly brutal way.
The series of events involved the collection of drug debts. The manner in which the act was carried out had involved judgment and the shooter had been the victim’s brother. The Court of Appeal has therefore considered the act as gross as a whole.
The KKO concluded that the act met the characteristics of murder.
Little brother the punishment was influenced by the fact that he had shot his brother in conditions reminiscent of his state of coercion. The Court of Appeal therefore held that, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the offense, the murder had been committed as a whole in the light of mitigating circumstances.
The KKO stated that the commission of a crime in circumstances resembling a state of coercion is a special person-related circumstance within the meaning of the Penal Code, which reduces the punishment of the act. This only applies to the person who committed the crime in such circumstances.
On the other hand, Hietamäki and Leinonen did not themselves act under pressure or coercion or in conditions resembling coercion. Therefore, these circumstances are not taken into account when assessing the criminal nature of their conduct.
Read more: Court of Appeal: Threatened person to murder when he forced his little brother to shoot his big brother in a gravel pit in Oulu
Read more: “It’s never going well in a place like this,” thought the Oulu man, and a moment later he shot his big brother in the head.
.
#Legal #proceedings #threatening #duo #forced #brother #shoot #big #brother #gravel #due #drug #debts #punishment #significantly #harsher #brother
