en/judicial/finland/dwi.txt
2005-11-22
Driving While Intoxicated – A Glimpse of Finnish Criminal Justice, Part One
This posting is part of my Finnish criminal court series. See the introductory essay for more information and an overview of the Finnish criminal court system.
The following is a fictional account of a criminal case, one of the most frequent ones, written in the form of a play script. A PDF is also available. There is also an OpenOffice-generated XHTML renderition, which may be more pleasant to read than the version below (but lacks most of its logical markup).
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED
A glimpse of Finnish criminal justice
Part One
Dramatis personae
Presiding judge
Prosecutor
Defendant
Extras
Three lay judges
Court reporter
Sets
Courtroom
Courthouse lobby
DISCLAIMER
This is a work of fiction. Although this play is based in general terms on real life, all the specific characters and events portrayed or described in this play are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental.
The verdict presented is fictitious, and while it is based on the author's understanding of the law, it may be erroneus. No legal advice should be inferred from this work of fiction.
Scene One: And so it begins
The courtroom is about the size of a large school classroom, and shaped as a rectangle in terms of floor layout. The judges' bench, a long wooden table, lays near one of the short walls; the space between the bench and the wall is enough to give the judges and the court clerks comfortable room to sit and to move behind the sitting judges. At the center of the bench is the seat of the presiding judge, who has easy access to a telephone, a public address system and a panel for controlling the LED display visible in the lobby above the courtroom door. To his or her right is the court reporter's seat in front of a PC and in control of recording equipment. To the reporter's right there is room for one additional individual. To the presiding judge's left, there are three chairs for the lay judges.
If one were to stand directly opposite the presiding judge, on the other side of the bench, one would find an open Bible. In front of the bench, disregarding the Bible, there is some room, approximately two meters or so. Along each long wall there is a small table, and those two tables face each other, and are therefore turned sideways from the bench's point of view. By the desk on the bench's right is the seat of the prosecutor, and the other, facing desk is reserved for the witness being examined. Facing the bench, separated from it by that empty space, are two rows of tables with chairs. Beyond them there are two rows of seats for the audience without tables; the farther row is right at the other short wall. The long wall to the judges' right contains one double door leading to the court building lobby, and the other long wall contains two sets of double doors at each end of the wall, leading to a part of the building not accessible to the public. We'll call the door closer to the bench the judges' door.
The PRESIDING JUDGE is a 50-something man dressed formally in black and blue. The three LAY JUDGES are more casually but still essentially formally clothed. LAY JUDGE ONE is a sixty-something male, LAY JUDGE TWO is a female in her fourties and LAY JUDGE THREE is a female just under thirty. The COURT REPORTER is a female in her fifties, also dressed formally.
It is 9:00. The four JUDGES and the COURT REPORTER are sitting on the bench. Each JUDGE has papers in front of him or her, the PRESIDING JUDGE's stack being by far the thickest.
The PROSECUTOR, fourty-something man, enters through the judges' door, carrying law books and a large stack of paper. He sits down at his desk.
Okay. Let's start.
The criminal case 'prosecutor against Matti Meikäläinen' begins in room three. Parties to room three.
Scene Two: Main hearing
The DEFENDANT enters through the double door from the lobby. He feels a little lost.
Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen?
Please, take a seat in the front row.
This case will be tried as follows. First, the prosecutor will read the charge. You will then respond by telling us if the charge is correct or not, that is, if you in fact did commit the acts specified in the charges, and if you did not, or the charge is only partially correct, you should state briefly why the charge is in error. The prosecutor will then present the case, he will describe us his understanding of the events in question. When he is finished, you will again have opportunity to state if the prosecutor is correct or not, and if not, in what way is he wrong. If there is disagreement between you and the prosecutor, we will hear the evidence. After that, the prosecutor will state his or her concluding opinion of the case as presented here. Again, you will have the opportunity to respond. We will conclude with discussion of what punishment, if any, would be appropriate. The court will then discuss the case alone, and will finally announce the verdict. Is this understood?
Okay. Prosecutor?
I demand punishment to Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen for driving while intoxicated. Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen had on the first of May this year operated his car while his exhaled air contained 0,597 milligrams of alcohol per liter. Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen's driving license must be suspended.
Is the charge correct?
Yes, it is.
Okay. The prosecutor will now tell us the circumstances and events in detail.
Thank you. It was to my understanding late evening on May day, and the defendant had come from a bar and was apparently trying to move his car to a cost-free parking space. A police patrol happened to observe this and the defendant had apparently been a little shaky in his walking, so the officers gave him a breathalyzer test, which showed significant alcohol content. The defendant was brought in the station where a precision test was performed. The first reading was 0,597 and the second reading was 0,617; the mean of these two is 0,607, and after performing the confidence subtraction, the reading 0,597 milligrams per liter was obtained.
Well then, is what the prosecutor just said true?
Yeah, it is.
All right. It seems to me that there are no points of disagreement, so we don't need to hear witnesses.
Okay, it's time for the concluding statements. I think we will hear consequence opinions at the same time. Prosecutor?
Thank you. I don't think there is much to say. The case has been shown beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. We have the precision test readings and the defendant's admission. As to the penalty... the amount of alcohol we are talking about is just below the limit for serious intoxication, so this is no small deal. On the other hand, the circumstances were not very dangerous. I think suspended imprisonment could well be considered, though a stiff fine would probably be more appropriate. The driving ban must be fairly long, obviously.
All right.
Do you have anything to say before we adjourn to consider the case?
Well, I suppose it's clear that something is going to be given to me. I prefer a fine, naturally.
Naturally. The court will consider all options. Do you have any special requests concerning a driving ban?
As short as possible, of course.
Do you have a particular need for a car, do you need it for work, for example?
No.
Okay. Now, your income. We have here the last completed tax report for you, it says you earned 500 euros a month and had no children. Has this changed?
No change.
Okay, thank you. If you will then go outside to wait while we consider this case, thank you.
The DEFENDANT exits to the lobby, the PROSECUTOR exits through the judges' door.
Scene Three: Deliberation
We are now in the lobby outside the courtroom. There are many doors that lead to many courtrooms. Above each door, attached to the wall, is a display showing the current case number; there is also a light saying do not enter, which is lit for most of the rooms, including Three. Also there is a numeric display which is out at the moment for most of the rooms. For some rooms, they indicate when the session will resume. Each courtroom door also has a paper pasted to the door frame listing the cases for the day. The door leading outside is separated from the lobby by a routine security check area, and one of the courthouse police guards stands there waiting for people to enter. Some other guards and janitors sit in their glass booth. There are many people sitting on the chairs, waiting for their turn to enter one of the courtrooms.
DEFENDANT enters from the Courtroom Three door and sits down, waiting. It takes about fifteen minutes. During this time, announcements from other courtrooms could be occasionally heard, and people would enter or exit other courtrooms. Then...
Verdict in the case 'prosecutor against Matti Meikäläinen' in Courtroom 3.
DEFENDANT exits through the Courtroom Three door.
Scene Four: The Verdict
The DEFENDANT enters from the lobby and sits down. After a minute, the PROSECUTOR rushes through the judges' door.
The District Court has examined this case and has decided that Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen did in fact commit the crime he was accused of in the way specified in the charge. The justification is the combination of the measured alcohol content in Meikäläinen's breath and his own admission of guilt. Matti Vihtori Meikäläinen is therefore sentenced to pay sixty-five day-fines, that is three hundred and ninety euros. Penal code, Chapter 23, Section 3. His driving license is suspended until the first of November this year. Road Traffic Act Section 75 Paragraph 1.
One who is dissatisfied with this verdict can appeal it to the Vaasa Apellate Court within thirty days. Dissatisfaction must be declared, however, either right now to me or within a week to the Office of this District Court.
Come and take the fine ticket and written appeal instructions
This hearing is concluded.
The DEFENDANT leaves, as the court and the prosecutor prepare for the next case.
(with the next case)
07:55 - /en/judicial/finland - 4 comments
