Courts: Planned law change could penalize threats more than actual violence

Experts from Estonia's court system who provided feedback on a Ministry of Justice draft intention noted that the proposed amendment may create the paradoxical situation where an individual could receive a harsher sentence for threatening physical violence than for actually carrying it out.
The Ministry of Justice plans to make threats of physical abuse, as well as actual abuse, a punishable offense.
The ministry has completed a draft intention of the bill which if it passed into law would introduce harsher penalties for abuse, would criminalize psychological violence, and would also ban animal ownership for those whose pets are adjudged to be dangerous or have already injured someone.
The ministry has found that while current law provides penalties in respect of credible threats to kill or injure a person or to cause major property damage, it does not cover more "simple" abuse or threats to do same.
Figuratively speaking, the ministry said it would want a criminal offense to be in place even if a person credibly says they are ready to strike or injure a person, or deprive them of their liberty.
The draft intention references a need to consider a prison sentence of up to three years for threats.
The second tier Tartu Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have given their opinions on the intention.
At present, paragraph 120 of the Penal Code states that a credible threat to kill, cause injury, or destroy significant property is punishable by a fine, or up to one year in prison.
The circuit court noted that in its view, a threat to "give someone a beating" already often falls under that paragraph 120 of the Penal Code.
"In such a case, the full context must be assessed, and if a serious threat of a beating is made, it is reasonable to expect that at least minor injuries would result," the court found.
The circuit court noted that nonetheless, expanding the offense is justified – for instance, as illustrated in the VTK (the Estonian abbreviation of the draft intent – ed.) through an example whereby an individual threatens to take away another's freedom of movement.

However, the court stressed that under no circumstances should the penalty for threats be increased, and a three-year sentence for threats would be disproportionately harsh.
The court pointed out that it would be especially illogical where the very next paragraph after 120 on physical abuse still carried a sentence of only up to one year as it currently does, adding that in such a case, a mere threat to cause injury could bring up to three years in prison, while actually causing injury would only bring up to one year.
"It would be logical that threatening to commit an act carries a lighter sentence than actually carrying it out," the court added.
Supreme Court: Criminalizing threats of abuse requires strong justification
According to the Supreme Court, the claim in the draft intent that under current law threats go unpunished if the perpetrator does not explicitly state what they plan to do and how they will harm is not in fact the case, particularly when citing precedent.
"This claim is not entirely accurate. According to case law, it is not necessary for the threatening party to clearly state the type of injury they intend to cause – what matters is that the circumstances as a whole provide grounds to affirm that a threat occurred," the court explained.
The Supreme Court also found unclear a claim in the intention that the goal is to make threats punishable whether they are articulated clearly or more generally.
"It is not clear what is meant by a more general threat," the court remarked.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the only justification in the draft for raising the maximum penalty for threats to three years is that repeated threats may constitute serious psychological violence.
However, there is no analysis of how a higher penalty fits with the broader logic of the Penal Code, especially since the intent is also to criminalize threats of physically painful abuse, the court found.
The court gave as an example whether it is justified to legalize up to three years in prison for threatening to pull someone's hair, while the same penalty would apply to offenses such as war propaganda, causing death via negligence, or the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Valner Väino, Andrew Whyte