Recent developments in crime prevention and safety policies in Finland.

• Author: Aromaa, Kauko

Le Conseil national de prevention du crime (CNPC) de la Finlande a ete cree en 1989. Le gouvernement a adopte en 1999 un programme national de prevention du crime. Ce programme s'inspire du > et comporte un organe national directeur et coordonnateur qui fournit des avis et des fonds au profit des comites et projets locaux de prevention du crime. Dans le cadre du modele nordique de la prevention du crime, le systeme de justice entretient des liens etroits avec d'autres secteurs et assure un equilibre entre prevention par le developpement social et prevention des situations criminogenes. Membre du Reseau europeen de prevention de la criminalite (REPC) depuis 2001, le CNPC choisit des projets a presenter a la conference annuelle sur les bonnes pratiques du REPC, qui seraient susceptibles de meriter un prix annuel europeen de la prevention de la criminalite. La politisation manifeste des questions liees a la lutte contre le crime necessite sans doute reflexion. Il faudrait probablement completer le modele nordique par d'autres demarches comme l'intervention precoce et diverses methodes de prevention sociale de la criminalite, et privilegier davantage le reseautage, la cooperation et les partenariats avec les nombreux acteurs intervenant dans la prevention du crime.

Introduction

In Finland, modern crime prevention began in a formal sense in 1989 with the establishment of the National Council for Crime Prevention (NCCP). The NCCP was based on precedents in the neighbouring Nordic countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway and followed a Council of Europe recommendation (see Takala 1999, 2005, in press). The NCCP's representatives come from many of the major stakeholders in Finnish society and from both public and private sectors. The NCCP also includes a secretariat established at and paid for by the Ministry of Justice. In Finland, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the courts and the correctional system but not, as in the other Nordic countries, for police affairs. A representative of the police department in the Ministry of the Interior provides the link to police affairs and acts as vice-chair of the NCCP. The ministries of Social and Health Affairs and of Education are also represented, as well as the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, several organizations from the business community, representatives of several non-governmental organizations, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and experts in criminological and social welfare research. (1)

In the late 1990s, the NCCP developed a national crime prevention program that was adopted by the Finnish government in 1999. It follows the "Nordic model" and includes a national coordinating and steering body that provides funding and advice to local crime prevention committees and projects. It also helps coordinate the endeavours of different national bodies and organizations that play a central role in the field of crime prevention, such as ministries and national-level NGOs.

The Nordic model of crime prevention

Finland has traditionally considered itself one of the so-called Nordic Countries, together with Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The countries vary in regards to their international alliances; for instance, three countries are members of NATO, but not the same three that are members of the European Union. Nevertheless, the rive countries have a history of very close cooperation and frequent exchanges of ideas in a number of areas, including criminal justice and crime prevention. Each of them also has a Council for Crime Prevention or a national body with similar responsibilities; those in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are considerably older than the one in Finland.

In a 2001 brochure on crime prevention in the Nordic Countries (SNCCP 2001), the Nordic model of crime prevention is described as involving "a strong affiliation to areas outside the justice system and the balance made between social and situational crime prevention." At least until recently, most of the influential actors within Nordic crime control policy shared the view that the criminal justice system in a narrow sense can have only a marginal effect on the prevention of crime. The function of the criminal justice system is seen primarily as that of creating basic norms and promoting general crime prevention. This is achieved as a result of its moral educative effect rather than through general deterrence. Hence, when one speaks of crime prevention in the Nordic Countries, one is not immediately thinking of more severe punishments or other repressive measures.

Another characteristic of the Nordic model of crime prevention that warrants mention in an international forum is the role of the welfare services. All Nordic countries have a fairly well developed social welfare system whose functions are to prevent social marginalization, to support socially vulnerable people, and to ensure that everyone has fair opportunities for education and earning a livelihood. These services are mainly thought of as valuable in themselves, not as crime prevention measures, although, based on what we know, they probably do prevent crime. Thus, "outside the Nordic countries there are many examples of crime preventive measures that coincide with what in the Nordic countries constitutes regular social work and is regarded as a citizen's right" (SNCCP 2001).

The Nordic model for crime prevention is also marked by the effort to base crime prevention measures on concrete knowledge. Ideally, this reflects support of evidence-based policies and a requirement that policies and programs be based on sound and theoretically justifiable empirical knowledge of interventions. Unfortunately, in practice, the type of evidence required is usually available only to a limited degree.

Finally, as the brochure states, the Nordic model is marked by the prominent place given to the public's sense of security. This reflects a broad consensus that reducing the public's fear of crime should be viewed as a crime policy objective in its own right, in part because these phenomena require a different type of explanation than that required to explain the origins of crime or the best way to respond to it, and in part because crime-targeted measures may also have unintended and counterproductive effects on the security feelings and perceptions of the general public. These, again, can often play an important part in the choice of what kinds of interventions and other policy measures are chosen to address a perceived crime problem.

The National Crime Prevention Program 1999: "Working Together for a Sale Society"

In 1999, the Finnish government adopted a national crime prevention program called "Working Together for a Safe Society" (Finland, Ministry of Justice 1999). Its stated objective is to create a common policy for action in preventing crime and promoting security. The goal is for the state to cooperate with local governments, the business community, the church, (2) non-governmental organizations, and private individuals in crime prevention initiatives. The focal point of the program is local crime prevention.

The program espouses three broad kinds of crime prevention strategies: situational prevention, developmental social prevention, and the interruption of criminal careers:

The policy for action consists in the first place of measures designed to decrease suitable opportunities for crime. For example, the commission of crime should be made more difficult or less profitable. In the second place, it consists of measures designed to prevent the development of some individuals into offenders, for example by targeting criminogenic risk factors connected with childhood or by supporting young persons in danger of marginalization. In the third place, the policy consists of measures designed to interrupt a criminal career that has already begun. (Finland, Ministry of Justice 1999: i) The program lists a large number of actions to be taken by the state. In practice, six ministries are responsible for carrying out the tasks: Justice, the Interior (responsible for...