The Finnish media outlet MTV3 reported that the trial of a relative of an immigrant living in Finland, who had resided in the country for two years, was suspended because, according to the presiding judge, “the interpretation is too inaccurate, so we cannot continue. However, the charges are very serious.”
According to the report, the homicide discussed in court took place in Suurpelto, Espoo, in August 2025, when the accused shot his ex-wife in the back in the stairwell of an apartment building. There are witnesses to the case, as the children of the killer and the victim saw the act, and the suspect himself has not denied taking the woman’s life.
The motive is suspected to be related to the perpetrator’s family honor – or rather the shame allegedly caused to it by the divorce. However, both the accused and the person suspected of assisting him have denied this.
There is essentially nothing unclear about the case: the killer and the murder weapon are known, and the victim is dead. Therefore, instead of determining guilt, the court is considering whether the act constitutes murder or manslaughter.
This is despite the fact that a male relative of the accused, initially suspected of supplying the weapon, denied doing so and instead claimed to have found it in an ordinary cardboard box in the basement of a pizzeria owned by the accused. Furthermore, a Turkish man closely related to the suspect and allegedly involved in the plot is known to have sent messages to the victim referring to a primitive concept of honor and low intelligence.
* * *
This case became the subject of a blog post because a man who has lived in our country for two years has required an interpreter in court and is unable to communicate in Finnish or Swedish, the official languages of the country. Nor is he able to understand the court’s informational needs even through an interpreter.
This inability costs real money, and neither of the previously linked news articles states who pays for it. I therefore asked an AI about this, which informed me that “if an interpreter is needed in court proceedings (for example, if the accused, a witness, or another person does not know Finnish or Swedish), the court will provide one,” and that the costs “are covered by state funds and are not directly payable by the parties.”
* * *
This is not a small matter, as interpreters are widely used in court proceedings. For example, the Helsinki police have reported that a couple of years ago, foreign suspects accounted for about 33 percent of all sexual offenses in the capital, and about 40 percent of rape cases.
I am not, of course, calling for trials to be conducted in a language that the accused do not understand. Instead, I would like to see more common sense in Finnish immigration policy. Above all, there should be strict requirements related to language learning for those immigrants who remain in the country for a longer period.
I am convinced that the costs of language proficiency testing would be offset for society through reduced interpretation expenses and—above all—through better integration of immigrants into society and the resulting higher employment rate. Nor do I see any sustainable reason why improved language skills would not also be beneficial for the immigrants themselves.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Two Recent Life-Threatening Crimes in Finland
