Critics argue that a proposal from the Socialist People’s Party (SF) to reform the justice system could undermine the rule of law and individual assessment. The proposal aims to address perceived inequalities in the system, where affluent individuals allegedly receive more lenient treatment than vulnerable citizens.

A key aspect of the proposal is the abolition of courts’ ability to consider a defendant’s personal circumstances during sentencing. Opponents argue this would lead to a rigid, mechanical justice system that disregards the individual behind the crime.

SF also proposes that fines should be proportionate to income, similar to the system in Finland. This has sparked debate about whether the law should have a different financial impact based on a person’s wealth.

Critics contend that income-based fines would send the wrong signal, implying that the law only applies to those who feel it financially. They argue that fines should reflect society’s condemnation of an action, not an assessment of an individual’s economic status.

Concerns have been raised that SF’s proposal prioritizes who a person is rather than what they have done. This is seen as ironic, given the stated goal of achieving equality before the law.

Supporters of the current system emphasize the importance of judicial discretion in assessing each case in its entirety. They argue that considering personal circumstances, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation are fundamental principles of justice that protect everyone.

Opponents warn that SF’s attempt to politicize the rule of law could have unintended consequences. They argue that principles that are abolished today for the affluent could later be used against the vulnerable, the wrongly accused, or anyone else.

The debate highlights differing views on equality before the law. While SF seeks to ensure equal financial impact, others argue that true equality means a fair, individual, and independent assessment for everyone.