Forensic Psychiatric Organization in Finland

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(00)00059-5Get rights and content

Introduction

In Finland, there are four national laws that deal with the forensic psychiatric services: criminal law on forensic psychiatric evaluations (1889), the mental health law (1990), Mental Health Act (1990), and the law about state mental hospitals (1987 and 1997) (Finnish Law, 1998). The mental health law deals with the general principles concerning mental health services and connections with health care in general. The ministry of social and welfare is responsible for organizing the health care system in Finland. Regionally, the provincial governments are responsible for this work. The communities are responsible for organizing health care, including mental health care, in their regions. The mental health law also supplies with basic guidelines for the work in state mental hospitals. According to the law, the main functions of state mental hospitals are performing forensic psychiatric evaluations and treating patients who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity as well as patients who are too dangerous or difficult to be treated in regional hospitals.

The mental health law defines when and how patients can be committed into mental hospitals involuntarily. For an involuntary commitment, the patient has to (a) be psychotic and; (b) due to his/her psychosis, he or she has to be (1) in the need of immediate psychiatric care or (2) dangerous to his/her health or welfare or (3) dangerous to other people's health or welfare; and (c) other treatment facilities are not satisfactory enough to give the patient treatment he or she needs. The above rules are valid both for the general psychiatric patients and for the forensic psychiatric patients.

The mental health law defines also about the forensic psychiatric evaluations. According to the Finnish law, the courts decide if a forensic psychiatric evaluation should be conducted. Basically, the evaluation can be ordered if the criminal offense committed by the accused is serious enough to result in at least a 1-year prison sentence. In reality, almost all forensic psychiatric examinations are conducted on offenders who have committed serious violent offenses or other serious criminal acts. In court, both the prosecutor and the defense are allowed to ask for a forensic psychiatric evaluation. However, it is the judge who makes the final decision. In most cases, when the offender is accused of serious violent acts, the judge agrees to the requests for evaluations. After deciding on the evaluation, the court asks the National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs (NAMA) to arrange the evaluation. The NAMA can, in some rather clear cases, make the evaluation on the basis of patient records. For example, in 1997, 11 cases, and in 1996, 18 cases were dealt in the NAMA without an actual forensic psychiatric evaluation. However, in most cases the NAMA asks special hospitals provided with forensic psychiatric experts to conduct the actual forensic psychiatric evaluation. In the whole country, on average, 200 to 250 forensic psychiatric evaluations per year have been conducted during the last decades Annual Report of National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs 1997, Eronen, Tiihonen, Ylitapio, & Hakola 1995, Eronen et al. 1996a. In the hospitals, a multidisciplinary team lead by a doctor specialized in forensic psychiatry evaluates the patient. The doctor is always a civil servant of the state (thus, he or she gets paid by the state and is expected to be as objective as possible). The evaluation is very thorough and includes exhaustive gathering of anamnestic data from various sources, thorough psychiatric evaluation, standardized psychological tests, interviews by a social worker and psychologist, evaluation of physical condition with laboratory testing and observation of the offender by the hospital staff, taking time in average for 5 weeks. The theoretical maximum time for the evaluation is 2 months. However, in some exceptional cases, 2 more months can be spent on the permission given by the NAMA. This extra time is used very rarely (e.g., in cases of suspected malingering).

As a result of the forensic evaluation, a detailed report with medical diagnosis and an opinion on the criminal responsibility is given to the NAMA by the forensic psychiatrist. The forensic psychiatrist also has to estimate, if the offender fulfills the criteria for involuntarily psychiatric care and if he or she is able to stand trial. Based on this report, and the criminal files, the NAMA then gives its opinion to the court. In the NAMA, the reports are scrutinized by at least two independent psychiatrists and at least by one independent judge. If they find evident errors in the report, they can send it back to the forensic psychiatrists for modification. In most cases (90%), the NAMA's and the forensic psychiatrist's conclusions are in agreement. However, the NAMA can also disagree and give its own opinion. After this procedure, the court of law independently decides about the criminal responsibility and the criminal judgement of the offender. In the Finnish system, the courts can neglect the health-care specialist's opinions. However, this happens only rarely, and in about 90% of the cases the courts have found the forensic psychiatric examination to be very reliable (Vartiainen & Hakola, 1992a).

In Finland, there are three different stages in criminal responsibility. A person can be fully criminally responsible, have diminished criminal responsibility, or be found not criminally responsible. In the first case, a person considered to be mentally healthy enough to be convicted and judged normally. Most criminal offenders (55% of those who have been studied in forensic psychiatric evaluation in recent years) belong to this group. If a person suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder, but not an actual psychosis, or at least has not suffered from a psychosis during his or her offense, he or she may be considered to have diminished criminal responsibility. Also, if the person is mentally retarded with a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1981) score between 55 and 70, he or she may be considered to be only partly criminally responsible for his or her acts. In these cases, the courts judge the offenders, but their sentences are 25% shorter than they would be if the person were fully criminally responsible for his or her acts. They are not convicted for a life sentence, either. This group of offenders is treated the same way as fully criminally responsible offenders. They are sentenced to prison. They do not get any specific psychiatric treatment unless they themselves ask for it. The third group of criminal responsibility in Finland (25% of those who have been studied in forensic psychiatric evaluation) consists of persons who are not found to be criminally responsible. They are either psychotic or mentally retarded (WAIS score <55). The courts do not judge them, but instead, the NAMA may commit them to mental hospitals for treatment. In most of the cases the treatment at least starts on a involuntary basis. However, every year there are also a few cases in which a person is not judged because he or she is considered to be not criminally responsible, and yet, he or she no longer fulfills the criteria for involuntary commitment at the time of the forensic psychiatric evaluation. These persons may continue their treatment on a voluntary basis or may even have no treatment or conviction at all.

Section snippets

The Forensic Inpatient Services in Finland

If the court of law finds an offender to be not criminally responsible, the NAMA decides the hospital where the patient's treatment starts. In most of the serious cases, the treatment starts in either of the two state mental hospitals in Finland; Niuvanniemi hospital provided with 284 beds or Vanha Vaasa hospital with 125 beds. After the first 6 months, the municipalities have a right to decide if they consider their local health-care organization to be capable of taking responsibility for the

How Forensic Patients Are Returned to General Mental Health Care in Finland

When the doctor in charge considers that it is possible to discharge the patient and start outpatient treatment, he/she makes a proposal to the NAMA. The NAMA can then decide to stop the treatment or to continue the involuntary treatment. If the patient is discharged, there is a 6-month supervision period while the patient is considered to be still in need of involuntary treatment. During this time, he or she can be readmitted to the hospital, if the reports from the outpatient unit indicate

Research on the Forensic Populations in Finland

Finland has a rich tradition in forensic psychiatric research. The two main centers for forensic psychiatric research in Finland are in Helsinki University Central Hospital and in Kuopio in Niuvanniemi Hospital. Helsinki's unit is lead by Professor Virkkunen, who has concentrated his research on impulsive violent behavior, familial alcoholism, and neurotransmitter metabolism. Professor Virkkunen and his co-workers have published a large number of studies on the associations between impulsive,

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (22)

  • J. Tiihonen et al.

    Risk of homicidal behavior among discharged forensic psychiatric patients

    Forensic Science International

    (1996)
  • J. Tiihonen et al.

    Risk of homicidal behaviour among persons convicted of homicide

    Forensic Science International

    (1995)
  • H. Vartiainen et al.

    The effects of TV monitoring on ward atmosphere in a security hospital

    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

    (1994)
  • Annual Report of National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs. (1997). Helsinki: Kirjapaino Snellman Oy (in...
  • M. Eronen

    Mental disorders and homicidal behavior in female subjects

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • M. Eronen et al.

    Factors associated with homicide recidivism in a 13-year sample of homicide offenders in Finland

    Psychiatric Services

    (1996)
  • M. Eronen et al.

    Mental disorders and homicidal behavior in Finland

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1996)
  • M. Eronen et al.

    Schizophrenia and homicidal behavior

    Schizophrenia Bulletin

    (1996)
  • M. Eronen et al.

    Uusimpia tutkimushavaintoja rikoksista syytettyjen henkilöiden oikeuspsykiatrisista mielentilatutkimuksista

    Lakimies

    (1995)
  • Suomen Laki 2

    (1998)
  • V.M.I. Linnoila et al.

    Aggression, suicidality and serotonin

    Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

    (1992)
  • Cited by (59)

    • Diminished criminal responsibility: A multinational comparative review

      2023, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
    • Firesetting and general criminal recidivism among a consecutive sample of Finnish pretrial male firesetters: A register-based follow-up study

      2018, Psychiatry Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The final FPE statement includes an opinion on the level of criminal responsibility, possible psychiatric diagnoses, and an assessment as to whether or not the offender fulfils the criteria for involuntary psychiatric care. The overall quality and reliability of Finnish FPEs are considered high among both courts and scientists (Eronen et al., 2000). The study population comprised a consecutive sample of 114 male firesetters who were subjected to a pretrial FPE in 1990–1998 at Helsinki University Hospital because of firesetting offenses, mainly arson.

    • Serious delinquency and later schizophrenia: A nationwide register-based follow-up study of Finnish pretrial 15- to 19-year-old offenders sent for a forensic psychiatric examination

      2017, European Psychiatry
      Citation Excerpt :

      This decrease links to economic factors and factors related to changes in national criminal policy. The overall high quality and reliability of Finnish forensic psychiatric examinations are acknowledged in the courts and among scientists [27]. This register-based nationwide prospective follow-up study, with a case-control design, aimed to shed more light on the potential relationship between serious delinquency and a future diagnosis of schizophrenia, using a sample of Finnish adolescents referred for a forensic psychiatric examination.

    • Do antipsychotic medications reduce or increase mortality in schizophrenia? A critical appraisal of the FIN-11 study

      2010, Schizophrenia Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      As this approach likely underestimates mortality in patients treated with antipsychotic medications, this critical methodological factor might help to explain why the previous literature arrived at different findings with regard to antipsychotic-related mortality risk (Osborn et al., 2007; Weinmann et al., 2009). Although deinstitutionalization in Finland has been extensive, psychiatric beds are still available and accessible (1996: 6255 beds, 2004: 4898 beds, and 2 medium sized, forensic psychiatric hospitals), significant proportions of patients reside in long-stay care (1996: 1918 patients; 2004: 1544 patients), and there are also possibly patients residing in other residential facilities in the community (Eronen et al., 2000; STAKES, 2009). These significant numbers of patients would once again have been excluded from the analyses in both this study and previous studies conducted by this group (exact number not reported in the present study; 31 additional deaths in the suicide study (Haukka et al., 2008)).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text