Finland intends to strengthen the conditions for life imprisonment

Finland's newly appointed government intends to introduce numerous changes to criminal legislation that ensure the most dangerous criminals will never be released. 

According to Yle, the national broadcasting company, one of the points in the government's program addresses discrepancies between criminal theory and practice.

In theory, life imprisonment in Finland allows for keeping a criminal in prison for the remainder of their life. However, in practice, this is often not the case. On average, after serving 12 years in prison, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment can appeal and be released.

At the same time, an imprisoned individual can be kept incarcerated for a longer period. For example, François Bazaramba, a Rwandan pastor convicted of genocide, continues to be imprisoned by the authority's decision, despite having served 16 years and being assessed by experts as having a low likelihood of committing violent crimes again. Bazaramba's detention is ongoing because the court deemed his crimes so serious that an extended prison term was necessary.

Nevertheless, in practice, nearly every convict sentenced to life imprisonment in Finland eventually gains their freedom if they live long enough.

However, there is a small group of convicted violent criminals among the prisoners who repeatedly commit crimes after their release. In order to prevent the release of such repeat offenders, the government intends to amend the criminal legislation.

When the Helsinki Court of Appeal considers applications for conditional or early release from life prisoners, it takes into account the assessment of the prisoner's dangerousness and the risk of violence. The problem lies in the fact that the assessment of dangerousness has proven to be an unreliable tool for predicting the risk of recidivism. In 2020, a group of forensic psychiatrists criticized the reliability of the assessment of dangerousness, stating that even the best risk assessment methods contain uncertainties to the extent that one can speak of a "gross acceptance of risk" when using them.

Furthermore, a study coordinated by the University of Eastern Finland in 2021 described the relevance of violence risk assessment as a random predictor of recidivism.

The Ministry of Justice's working group considered the unreliability of the assessment of dangerousness as the most significant reason why it did not recommend the introduction of preventive detention or "custody before sentencing" in its report.