Improper influence against prosecutors and judges in Finland and Sweden: findings from two national surveys 2008
The web survey was carried out in 2008, targeting all prosecutors and judges in office in Finland and Sweden. The forms of improper influence addressed in the questionnaire were harassment, threats, violence, vandalism and corruption. The reference period applied was the preceding 18 months. The sur...
European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI)
Volltext (Kostenfrei) |
|Check availability:||HBZ Gateway|
|Summary:||The web survey was carried out in 2008, targeting all prosecutors and judges in office in Finland and Sweden. The forms of improper influence addressed in the questionnaire were harassment, threats, violence, vandalism and corruption. The reference period applied was the preceding 18 months. The survey was carried out simultaneously in Finland and in Sweden using an identical questionnaire. Judges and prosecutors have experience of all of the listed forms of improper influences. However, the dominant forms of influence are harassment and threats. Victimisation occurred primarily at the workplace, and only rarely in the leisure time of the respondents. Most of the perpetrators were individuals who were not connected with criminal organisations. This is the case in particular when the victim was a judge. Occasionally, however, organised crime representatives were also observed to be involved. This was true for prosecutors in particular. Swedish prosecutors were harassed and threatened by organised crime representatives significantly more often than Finnish prosecutors. It was unusual that family members of the civil servants concerned were victimised, but also some such instances were reported, some of them quite serious. Again, such incidents were more likely in Sweden than in Finland. According to the respondents, the employer organisations of the respondents had not done very much to prevent such incidents or to protect their employees from improper influences. The respondents were also of the opinion that much more should be done about the problem. The respondents had many suggestions for improvements, some of them quite sophisticated. These included, inter alia, ideas concerning the way their work was organised, the protection of personal data, access control, and the physical design of the offices and courtrooms. Overall, the responses demonstrate that the persons involved should be consulted carefully when planning and implementing new measures to prevent improper influences and to minimize their impact.|
|Physical Description:||1 Online-Ressource (110 Seiten)|