Threatening situations should be reported with a low threshold — authorities can offer help already at an early stage

The police reminds that no one should be alone in a mentally challenging situation or emotional state. Neither should anyone stay alone with thoughts that are threatening to themselves or others. Instead, they should contact, for example, the following low-threshold instances:

• Mental Health Finland’s Crisis Helpline: 09 2525 0111 (weekdays 9 a.m.–7 a.m., weekends and public holidays 3 p.m.–7 a.m.)
• Sekasin Chat is a national chat forum for 12–29-year-olds: https://sekasin247.fi (on-call service Monday–Friday 9 a.m.–12 midnight and weekends 3 p.m.–12 midnight)
• Substance abuse counselling (Ehyt Finnish Association for Substance Abuse Prevention), tel. 0800 900 45.The free substance abuse counselling helpline serves you every day of the year 24 hours a day. Professional counsellors support you in questions related to intoxicants and drugs. You can discuss the substance abuse of yourself, a person close to you or a customer. The service is anonymous and confidential.
• School-aged children can contact the following low-threshold instances: the school health care, school welfare officer, school counsellor (opo), school staff or a doctor at a health centre who also treats students.
• Public or private health services.

Different laws have defined the right for authorities and other operators to notify the police if they find out someone is in danger of becoming a victim of violence.

A person causing concern, who do I notify?

If you are worried about someone in your social circle, it should be reported to, for example, the educational institution’s responsible parties, supervisor at work or directly to the police, who are all able to assess the need for action in the situation. In threatening situations the police will and should always be contacted. Threatening situations online can be notified to the police via net tip: https://www.poliisi.fi/nettip.

Acute threats should always be reported to the emergency services by calling 112.

”It’s important that the authorities are made aware of the person causing concern as soon as possible so that the person can, if necessary, be directed to the help they need,” says Marko Savolainen, Chief Superintendent at the National Police Board.

The police reminds that reporting a person who is causing concern does not mean that a crime report would automatically be filed against them and that they would end up as the object of criminal investigation.

”Many times, initiating criminal investigation in threatening situations is only the last resort, but sometimes, a pre-trial investigation is necessary. Most cases can be handled in cooperation with authorities, and the person can be directed to receive help that is based on their individual needs,” Savolainen emphasises.

The police’s central statutory task is to prevent crimes and maintain the safety of citizens. The police will intervene in threatening situations and people who cause concern and, if necessary, use the power it has been granted by law to take care of its tasks. The police acts in cooperation with other authorities and parties to maintain safety.

Preventing crimes that threaten lives and health is an essential part of safety work. The police will not intervene in anyone’s rights or cause more damage or disturbance than what is necessary to carry out its operation.

Most threats are directed at private people

According to statistics, the National Bureau of Investigation supported local police departments in preventing and investigating 341 separate threatening cases last year. In reality, the number of threats and people causing concern is significantly higher nationally, as the National Bureau of Investigation only finds out about the most serious cases.

“Approximately 60 cases that came to the National Bureau of Investigation‘s knowledge last year were targeted at schools. Other threatening situations were mainly targeted at individuals, government employees and politicians, or they were connected to, for example, family violence or idolisation of mass killings,” explains Senior Detective Superintendent Arto Tuomela from the National Bureau of Investigation.

“A clear majority of last year’s threatening cases were targeted at private individuals,” Tuomela continues.

Many threats are also done out of inconsideration or in a malicious manner. These factors have come up, for example, in cases related to school threats.

”The person making the threat may not have understood that the threat will often have long-term effects. A threat could often have criminal consequences, or it might lead to child protection measures,” Tuomela states.

Some cases related to a minor’s symptoms have started to unravel when the guardian contacted the school and described the child’s symptoms.

”Whether the report is made to the school, principal, health care or an authority, the important thing is that it is reported. This means that supportive action can begin and will also in the future begin as collaboration between authorities,” Tuomela emphasises.


Legislation and the exchange of information between authorities need further development

The National Police Board underlines that the case of removing and preventing threatening cases is something that needs to be solved by the entire society — individual authorities cannot solve the problem.

For example, the police has already made suggestions for how the existing legislation could be utilised and developed so that it would be possible to intervene in threatening situations as efficiently as possible through collaboration between authorities.

”It would be important that, for example, the different authorities would be legally and unambiguously obligated to report threatening situations or people causing concern. This would not mean that a person causing concern would automatically end up as an object of criminal investigation, but they could be directed to the help they need more efficiently,” Savolainen explains.

From the police’s point of view, it’s essential that communication between authorities becomes even more flexible.

”Right now, the legislation is ambiguous, and various authorities interpret the law differently in regards to, for example, exchange of information. The legislation still needs development: the police’s right to receive information should be clarified when we are talking about the threat of violence. Currently, the law is interpreted by individual lawyers at different authorities and thus, the interpretations vary. This means that sometimes, the police does not even find out about the threat of violence,” Savolainen says.

A strict interpretation of the data protection legislation also causes problems for the necessary flow of information.

”If, for example, a teacher is not allowed to report a student causing concern to the student welfare group, it will be significantly more difficult for these people to get help. And the people who need help the most do not always recognise this need themselves, or they might actively oppose the help they are offered. Data protection must not create a “safety place” where problems can grow in peace without us being able to access them or that dealing with the problems can be prevented by the concerned parties,” Savolainen mentions.

“The National Police Board’s view is that it would be excellent if we could include studies in safety and preparation in the universities’ teacher education. If necessary, this could be realised, for example, as a collaboration between universities and central safety authorities,” Savolainen continues.

Solving threatening situations concerns the entire society

Threatening cases increase when they are discussed in public. For example, after the violence in Kuopio last week, the increase in school and other violence threats, for example, online that the police has become aware of has increased significantly.

The worst-case scenario is that a maliciously made threat binds the police’s and other authorities’ resources in the wrong place, which means that a threat made out of inconsideration may be life-threatening to someone else and cause major damage.

Savolainen says that in the future, the possibility to invoice costs for threats that were made with obvious malicious intent will be examined.

”The liability for damages begins already before a person has criminal liability, so this applies to minors as well,” Savolainen says.

Savolainen also emphasises that solving threatening cases is something that concerns the entire society and should be tackled together with authorities and various parties.

”Different parties should be able to exchange information more efficiently with each other, to identify persons causing concern, to intervene at an early stage and in general, to come up with a mutual goal to solve problems. On the other hand, the different parties should also be able focus on preventing exclusion and bullying. Thus, it is an incredibly complicated issue that concerns the entire society,” Savolainen concludes.