Finland really is a peculiar country. You can take another person’s life and, after a short stint in lockup, continue your life as normal. What now, the bailiff politely asks if the gentleman might care to drop by the courthouse?
What if there was at least an ankle monitor and a travel ban before the trial? I suppose some docent would consider even that a human rights violation.
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about cases where suspects have been released from remand or allowed to remain free after the trial while awaiting sentencing. Aleksanteri Kivimäki’s sentence is one example; his sentence was significantly increased in the Court of Appeal, but he was still allowed to remain free to await the Supreme Court’s stance on his application for leave to appeal, even though the Court of Appeal’s decision is enforceable and he could be sent to prison. Well, now the gentleman is who knows where—last seen, according to sightings, heading to Barcelona. Should Kivimäki have been sent to serve his sentence immediately, given that he has evaded the law abroad before and has even traveled with forged ID cards? He was originally caught somewhat by chance, in France if I recall correctly.
Well, criticism is often justified. However, one variable could be highlighted here, which can perhaps be read between the lines of the story. These suspects had beaten the victim “to within an inch of their life” and the victim was taken to the hospital for treatment, but later died of their injuries. Even if the prosecutor charges them with manslaughter (tappo), it is possible that the defendants would only be convicted of aggravated negligent homicide (törkeä kuolemantuottamus), because the victim did not die instantly on the spot, but only later in the hospital. It can be difficult to prove that the specific intent of the act was to cause the victim’s death, and if the court finds that it is not a case of manslaughter, it has a major impact on the sentencing. There have been such cases in judicial practice, and the perpetrators have gotten away with sentences as short as 1.5 years in prison. If the case isn’t a completely “crystal clear” manslaughter, keeping someone detained until the main hearing presents its own legal challenges. The same applies to an enhanced travel ban, which is an alternative to detention.
It is also not very unusual for a main hearing to be canceled because the process server cannot reach the defendant. Evading a process server is quite easy if you make it your goal and have enough motivation to stay away from the authorities. These rascals are eventually found sooner or later via an arrest warrant when they inevitably come into contact with the police. It is also possible that even after being served, the defendant does not show up, and must be ordered to be brought in for the main hearing, and we are faced with the same problem again.
Undoubtedly, this becomes expensive for society and does not help the already congested district courts at all. And it doesn’t look good to the public, either.
Here is another truly unpleasant case where the defense is trying to get a murder charge mitigated to manslaughter.
I propose (once again) that the Criminal Code be amended so that a homicide committed with a firearm is always classified as murder. This would emphasize the great responsibility of the weapon holder.
Furthermore, there are far too many of these manslaughter sentences where the convicted person puts a pistol/revolver in their pocket and goes to the victim to “settle things.” The defense is able to claim quite easily that carrying the weapon did not demonstrate premeditation.
It is an interesting case, also in the sense that the perpetrator is unlikely to ever see freedom again, whether they received a sentence for manslaughter or a life sentence. How is the care for an elderly person like this handled in prison, or can people of that age be kept in prison at all? I don’t know if prison is an effective way to prevent crime in general unless the sentences are on the scale of the USA. Perhaps entirely new ways should be invented to replace prison sentences, as keeping a person in prison is incredibly expensive.
Only if the prison is at the current level of a care facility in Finland. Move prisoners to third countries with poorer conditions—at least the worst and long-term clients who should never see freedom again. There’s no need to provide rehabilitation or a holiday retreat then.
In 2020, the Finns Party was the only party that supported increasing the average maturity of the government’s debt portfolio. If only the other parties had understood the risks of short-term interest rates a bit better. https://www2.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/PoytakirjaAsiakohta/Sivut/PTK_170+2020+4.6.aspx
– It is justified to ask which international reference group Finland positions itself in if it lacks comprehensive and continuously updated election statistics. Open and high-quality election statistics are a central part of Western, comparable democracy monitoring, the election research consortium writes in its statement.
The election research consortium says it understands that economic pressures are real, but does not believe that short-term savings are a rational reason for cutting off election statistics.
– Measuring democracy is not an additional service requiring special funding, but a basic function of society. Once the long time series of election statistics are broken, the lost information cannot be recovered, the consortium writes.
The consortium points out that without election statistics, Finland would deviate from the countries it has traditionally been compared to in terms of the quality and transparency of democracy.
– No Western democracy has abolished official election statistics. Open and systematic democracy monitoring has been a hallmark specifically for those countries that emphasize the rule of law, trust in administration, and evidence-based decision-making. Abolishing election statistics would send the complete opposite message, the consortium writes.
I wonder if that is truly a sensible target for savings; perhaps the parliamentary elections could be abolished next, saving 16 million euros for the state treasury.
We joined NATO, but the vibe is more like the Warsaw Pact.
This whole situation was “muddied” back then (in 2020) by those famous interest rate swaps, making the entire picture a bit hazy, at least to me. Without those interest rate swaps, that proposal would certainly have been sensible, at least in hindsight.
Here is more detail regarding interest rate swapping and its potential long-term benefits. Was the baby thrown out with the bathwater when these were abandoned? Future historians will have to evaluate this, and it likely requires some distance to see clearly. It is also true that these interest rate swaps have generated quite substantial profits. On the other hand, it is clear that derivative losses are rather difficult to explain to the general public, so from the very beginning, this arrangement may have been a bit too “opaque” for the masses.
It is truly worrying how poorly politicians understand national debt and its risks. We are talking about billions that could be saved and protected with a sensible debt management strategy. Matti Vanhanen, who was the Minister of Finance in 2020, has even admitted directly that he was completely clueless regarding the debt management strategy and its risks.
I don’t know if the Finns Party (Perussuomalaiset), in their proposal, wanted to extend the interest rate fixation period longer than what was average in interest rate swaps, or if they ultimately wanted to spark a discussion about this failed debt management strategy. In any case, the other parties have been completely out of the loop. Even on this forum, the Finns Party has not received sufficient respect for their proactive views on risks and problems. It makes one wonder why people are afraid to admit the truth…
Taavetti was left wondering what the role of the State Treasury (Valtiokonttori) is in that scenario? One would think that reasoned proposals on these matters would come to the decision-makers from somewhere.
Otherwise, Taavetti thinks that talking about national debt and its uses easily leads to topics that many do not dare to engage with. There are plenty of “cards” being dealt there that can put one’s own political ambitions on a proper timeout.
“Should we further impoverish the already miserable elderly care.” “Should we add another five years to the retirement age.” “Let’s state out loud that we cannot afford universal primary healthcare with a small office fee (even if that office fee is €100) and abolish state-maintained primary healthcare. Private providers will organize it.” “Even though a high general education level enables Finland’s competitiveness in the future, let’s shut down half of the universities.” And so on.
The way we discuss things should somehow be changed so that even difficult issues could be addressed. But how?
My own interpretation on a general level is that extending the debt maturity would not have helped, because interest rate swaps would have been applied to them anyway. What would have been essential (at least in hindsight) was to intervene in these swaps already back then. Then, of course, one should have also been able to foresee the effects that the escalation of the war in Ukraine would have on interest rates in 2022 and beyond. It goes without saying that it is difficult to have a sensible discussion about this, as it becomes politicized almost immediately. It is a pity, because the subject is serious and it would be good to go through the events of past years openly and dispassionately, at least in retrospect, so that we can learn from them.
It is clear that a mistake was made here. World crises cannot be predicted, of course, but surely management should realize that when interest rates turn negative and could be locked in, doing so would be the sensible move. The risk of them rising significantly is far greater than the probability of them continuing to drop even further into the negative. To me, this sounds like classic poor management. Politicians will hardly be held accountable for it; after all, they aren’t elected based on this type of technical expertise nowadays. Now would be the time for Purra to step up, demand accountability, and create a real culture of professional responsibility within the ministry she leads.
Wait, is this some kind of joke? Purra has been the Minister of Finance for nearly three years now, and during that time Finland has taken on more debt than ever before, and now we are supposed to accept some alternative truth that specifically the Finns Party understands debt matters better than other parties. 
Has Purra increased spending, necessitating this debt being taken on?
In hindsight, it’s easy to point these things out, but let’s at least say that the war in Ukraine and the resulting inflation spike—due in part to the cutoff of natural gas deliveries from Russia—wasn’t exactly in everyone’s cards. Since solid money had already been made with interest rate swaps previously, there was a bit of a threshold to abandon the old strategy.
She is not going to do anything about this for the reason that, as a professional economist, she understands very well what is at stake. In fact, right now, Purra is likely annoyed that this strategy was abandoned, because the yield curve is clearly rising and money would now be made with swaps as in the old days (or conversely, the fact that they are not currently being used is causing us quite significant losses).
I don’t see this issue as black and white. It may be that, from a comprehensive assessment standpoint, it is better not to use these swaps. The worst option would be to use them sometimes and not others, because then the State Treasury would take on the role of a speculator in this matter. Based on this discussion, it’s probably clear that the public’s tolerance for losses in such speculation is quite low. That is perhaps a bit of a shame, because the underlying idea in this interest rate swapping is actually quite logical.
Maybe you’re getting cause-and-effect relationships a bit mixed up? Debt is being taken on now primarily because the public sector has been allowed to bloat too much over the last 20 years, and especially during the previous leftist government. Of course, I would wish that the Finns Party were further to the right in their economic thinking (i.e., smarter), but unfortunately, Purra seems to be the best Finance Minister Finland has had in a very long time.
Based on your previous comments, you seem to belong to the left, which means that in your opinion and that of the parties you vote for, the public sector should be expanded even further from its current state? Is this some kind of joke or an alternative truth—that the outcome wouldn’t be even worse with the politics you vote for?
There is one thing that no political party can do anything about, and that is the aging of the Finnish population, which results in increasing costs. This is a taboo that no one talks about, and because of that, the costs and potential cuts to this expenditure item are not discussed anywhere.
I calculated with the help of AI that about 25% of the Finnish population are private sector employees earning over €30,000/year. This was my “rule of thumb” estimate for those who get by without transfer payments and are becoming so-called net taxpayers. In other words, the labor of one person must support four people. No wonder it’s difficult. Furthermore, even in the private sector, there are many firms whose most important customer is the public sector.
The Left’s only solution seems to be tightening taxes on that single, relatively small group that generates productivity growth and innovation in Finland. However, the Left does not explain how Finland’s economic growth will take off by eroding the work motivation of high-productivity individuals through taxation.
Have a nice Mother’s Day evening to everyone equally, but not in a leveling (egalitarian) way.
By reducing government revenue, the budget deficit can also be increased, thereby driving up interest expenses. This is exactly what Purra has been doing for nearly three years now.
Taxes were cut by less than a billion. Was there anything else? And this is just the direct impact; indirectly, it improves incentives to work, which also increases tax revenue. This is because Finland is well on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.