Kriminaalipolitiikan paradoksi : Tutkimuksia huumausainerikollisuudesta ja sen kontrollista Suomessa

This doctoral thesis explores the development of drug markets and drug related crime in Finland since the mid 1990s, as well as public control measures aimed at solving problems related to drug crime. The research further examines the criminal career of persons having committed drug crime, as well as their socio-economic background. The period since the mid 1990s is, on the one hand, characterized by increasing use of drugs and increasingly severe drug problems. On the other hand, this period is also characterized by intensified drug control. Also criminality associated with drugs has increased and become more severe. During this period the prevention of drug problems became a focal issue for authorities, and resources were increased for activities geared towards fighting drugs. Along with this development, Finnish drug policy has been balancing between therapeutic activities and control. A focal point in this thesis is the question how society addresses drug problems, as well as how this differs from efforts to solve other problems. Why are criminal means so readily used when dealing with drug problems; why have the police received an extended mandate to use coercive force; and why has the field for imposing administrative sanctions been extended? How has the extension of drug control affected general thinking in criminal policy? The subject matter in this thesis is approached in a criminological and criminal policy perspective. The thesis is made up of four research articles and a Summary Article. In the Summary Article the studies were placed into the Finnish research context of drug criminality and drug control as well as criminal policy. Furthermore, the author has assessed his own research location as a drug control researcher. Applying the notion of risk, an analysis was made of threats posed by drugs to society. Theoretical perspectives were also brought to the fore on how society may regulate drug problems and threats associated with them. Based on research literature and administrative documents, an analysis was made of the relation between drug related social and health policy and criminal justice control. An account was also made of the development of drug control in Finland since the mid 1990s. There has been a strong increase in control by the criminal justice system since the mid 1990s. Penalties have been made more stringent, more efficient means have been developed to trace the financial gain from the offence, opportunities for money laundering have been prevented and the police has obtained ample new powers of inquiry. New administrative measures have been directed towards drug users, such as introducing drug tests in working life, checking the applicants criminal record for certain jobs, as well as the threat of losing one s driving licence in cases where a physician has established drug addiction. In the 1990s the prevention of drug crimes and their disclosure were made part of the police s control activities nationwide. This could clearly be seen in increased criminal statistics. There are humiliating elements associated with the police s drug control that should be eliminated for the benefit of everybody. Furthermore, the criminal control is directed towards persons in a weak socio-economic position. A drug verdict may set off a marginalization process that may be very difficult to halt. Drug control is selective and generates repressive practises. The special status accorded drug problems is also revealed in the way in which the treatment of drug addicts has developed.

Beyond Words : The European Court of Justice and Legal Certainty in Multilingual EU Law

This study addresses the issue of multilingualism in EU law. More specifically, it explores the implications of multilingualism for conceptualising legal certainty, a central principle of law both in domestic and EU legal systems. The main question addressed is how multilingualism and legal certainty may be reconciled in the EU legal system. The study begins with a discussion on the role of translation in drafting EU legislation and its implications for interpreting EU law at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Uncertainty regarding the meaning of multilingual EU law and the interrelationship between multilingualism and ECJ methods of interpretation are explored. This analysis leads to questioning the importance of linguistic-semantic methods of interpretation, especially the role of comparing language versions for clarifying meaning and the ordinary meaning thesis, and to placing emphasis on other, especially the teleological, purpose-oriented method of interpretation. As regards the principle of legal certainty, the starting-point is a two-dimensional concept consisting of both formal and substantive elements; of predictability and acceptability. Formal legal certainty implies that laws and adjudication, in particular, must be predictable. Substantive legal certainty is related to rational acceptability of judicial decision-making placing emphasis on its acceptability to the legal community in question. Contrary to predictability that one might intuitively relate to linguistic-semantic methods of interpretation, the study suggests a new conception of legal certainty where purpose, telos, and other dynamic methods of interpretation are of particular significance for meaning construction in multilingual EU law. Accordingly, the importance of purposive, teleological interpretation as the standard doctrine of interpretation in a multilingual legal system is highlighted. The focus on rational, substantive acceptability results in emphasising discourse among legal actors among the EU legal community and stressing the need to give reasons in favour of proposed meaning in accordance with dynamic methods of interpretation including considerations related to purposes, aims, objectives and consequences. In this context, the role of ideal discourse situations and communicative action taking the form of interaction among the EU legal community in an ongoing dialogue especially in the preliminary ruling procedure is brought into focus. In order for this dialogue to function, it requires that the ECJ gives persuasive, convincing and acceptable reasons in justifying its decisions. This necessitates transparency, sincerity, and dialogue with the relevant audience.

Despairing Justice and the Ethics of Legal Interpretation

This study discusses legal interpretation. The question is how legal texts, for instance laws, statutes and regulations, can and do have meaning. Language makes interpretation difficult as it holds no definite meanings. When the theoretical connection between semantics and legal meaning is loosened and we realise that language cannot be a means of justifying legal decisions, the responsibility inherent in legal interpretation can be seen in full. We are thus compelled to search for ways to analyse this responsibility. The main argument of the book is that the responsibility of legal interpretation contains a responsibility towards the text that is interpreted (and through the mediation of the text also towards the legal system), but not only this. It is not simply a responsibility to read and read well, but it transcends on a broader scale. It includes responsibility for the effects of the interpretation in a particular situation and with regard to the people whose case is decided. Ultimately, it is a responsibility to do justice. These two aspects of responsibility are conceptualised here as the two dimensions of the ethics of legal interpretation: the textual and the situational. The basic conception of language presented here is provided by Ludwig Wittgenstein s later philosophy, but the argument is not committed to only one philosophical tradition. Wittgenstein can be counterpointed in interesting ways by Jacques Derrida s ideas on language and meaning. Derrida s work also functions as a contrast to hermeneutic theories. It is argued that the seed to an answer to the question of meaning lies in the inter-personal and situated activity of interpretation and communication, an idea that can be discerned in different ways in the works of Wittgenstein, Derrida and Hans-Georg Gadamer. This way the question of meaning naturally leads us to think about ethics, which is approached here through the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. His thinking, focusing on topics such as otherness, friendship and hospitality, provides possibilities for answering some of the questions posed in this book. However, at the same time we move inside a normativity where ethics and politics come together in many ways. The responsibility of legal interpretation is connected to the political and this has to be acknowledged lest we forget that law always implies force. But it is argued here that the political can be explored in positive terms as it does not have to mean only power or violence.