The Deterrent Effect of Fines and Probation on Male Juvenile Offenders
| Date | 01 December 1974 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587400700404 |
| Published date | 01 December 1974 |
| Author | J. Kraus |
AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINOLOGY
(December,
1974):
7,4
231
T
he
Deterrent
Effect
of
Fines
and
Probation
on
MaLe
JuveniLe
Offenders
J.
KRAUS*
THE
USE
of
fines
in
criminal
convictions
involving
male
juvenile
offenders
more
than doubled
in
New
South Wales
within
a
de~ade,
increasing
from
4.0
per
cent
of
Children's
Court
orders
in
the 1959-61
period
to 8.8
per
cent
in
1967-69; however,
fines
are
still
used considerably less
often
here than
in
many
Western countries.
For
example, in· the
U.K.
in
1966
fines
were
imposed on 62.1
per
cent
of
'young
persons' and 27.9
per
cent
of
children
found
guilty
in
magistrates'
courts
(Fining
the Parents, 1967).
In
Canada
in
1964, 22.0
per
cent
of
convictions
for
indictable
offences and 97.3
per
cent
of
convictions
for
summary
offences resulted
in
fines
(Davidson, 1965).
In
1961,60
per
cent
o~fall
sentences imposed
by
West
German
courts
(not
including
traffic
offences)
involved
fines
(Zipf,
1966).
There
is also a
trend,
apparent
in
the
literature,
advocating
the
replacement
of
prison
senten-
ces,
particularly
short
ones,
by
equitably
fixed
fines
proportionate
to the offen-
der's
income
and the length
of
imprjsonment
to
which
he
would
be otherwise
subjected
(Graven
1963;
How
Should
Traffic
Offenders be Punished?, 1968;
Zipf,
1966;
Playfair
and Sington, 1965; Bauman, 1969;
Imprisonment,
1970;
Murzy-
~owski,
1970).
However,
relatively
little
is
known about the
corrective
efficacy·
of
fines, not
only
because
of
the
paucity
of
research
but
also because
of
the equi-
vocality
of
available
findings. Some
investigators
report
that
fines
are
no
more
effective
than
other
penal measures (Tornudd, 1966;
Mecham,
1968), others
found
them
to be
more
effective
(Lovald
and Stub, 1968; The Sentence
of
the
Court, 1964).
In
addition
to the
uncertainty
about
their
effectiveness, the use
of
monetary
fines
with
juvenile
offenders presents aspecific
limitation
of
financial
depen~
ence. Although
it
could
be
argued
that
when a
juvenile's
fine
is
paid
by his
parent, this
might
increase the
parent's
sense
of
responsibility
for
his
child's
doings, -this proposition is not acceptable in
law
which required
contributory
negligence
on
the
part
of
the parent
if
he is to be penalised. However, the
fining
of
parents appears to be
relatively
uncommon;
for
example
in
the
U.K.
in
1966,
payment
orders
against parents
were
made
by
the
courts
in
only
1.)9'0
of
cases in
which fines were imposed
on
juvenile
offenders
(Fining
the Parents, 1967).
It
seems obvious
therefore,
that the
imposition
of
a
monetary
fine
is
likely
to
be
meaningful
only when the
juvenile
offender
has an independent income.
In
spite
of
its
limited
usefulness,
if
shown tp be
effective
.in
comparison
·with
other
COf-
rective
measures applied ·to
juvenile
offenders, the fine has some unique and
recommendable features.
From
the social
point
of
view
it
is the
only
penal meas-
ure
which not
only
does not burden the
community
but is
fiscally
advantageous.
The fine
is
also the
only
penalty which can take the
form
of
direct
compensation
to the
victim
of
an offence, thus
giving
the
offender
alesson
in
expiation
in
fact
as
well
as
in
form.
Additionally,
the
fine
is a
flexible
penalty
which
can be adjusted
not only to the means and needs
of
the
offender
but also to some
theoretical
•M.A., Dip.
PSYCh.,
Dip. Crim., Senior
Research
Officer.
Department
of Child Welfare and Social
Welfare of New South Wales,.Sydney. Australia.
To continue reading
Request your trial