Browsing by Author "Erik, Kemppainen"

Organized crime is a concept that elicits powerful conceptions of particularly serious, methodical and large-scale criminality. Such conceptions of organized crime have directed societal discourse on the matter and influenced public decision makers, yet the particular gravity associated with organized crime is not reflected in the legal definitions that have been adopted at the European level, and as an extension stemming from harmonization, in national orders of criminal law. The definition of a ‘criminal organization’ adopted by the Union in the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA remains exceedingly vague and overinclusive and does little to reflect the aspects that are traditionally associated with organized crime. This discrepancy is problematic, for the aforementioned conceptions of organized crime have been used to justify increased repression for those that have been deemed to fall under the broad ambit of organized crime as defined in the framework decision. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the history and background of the European Union’s organized crime related instruments and to subject them to the scrutiny of normative criminalization theory to ascertain whether the EU’s measures in the field are acceptable under a normative conception of legitimate criminal law. As such, aspects of legal theory and philosophy are heavily present in the methodology of this thesis. To determine the normative legitimacy of criminal law measures in the field of organized crime, this thesis relies on a traditional, restrictive conception of criminal law which is juxtaposed with the expansive, prevention-oriented approach to criminal law which the EU’s measures in the field of organized crime embody. To achieve this objective, the EU’s organized crime related harmonization measures are subjected to scrutiny imposed by certain relevant restrictive criminalization principles. As it becomes evident that the Union’s measures largely fail to live up to the standards that are required of legitimate criminalization, a natural follow up question becomes relevant: can or should we maintain the current harmonization efforts in the field of organized crime? To answer this question, the latter portion of this focuses on conceptualizing potential alternative normative justifications for harmonization in the field of EU criminal law and on how harmonizing organized crime-related legislation in a legitimate manner could serve a worthwhile function considering these alternative justifications.