The Fine
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837704100310 |
| Date | 01 July 1977 |
| Published date | 01 July 1977 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Fine
The
fine is easily
the
most
common
sanction
imposed
by
the
courts.
The
advantages are obvious.
No
social
dislocation
for
the
offender,
little
if
any
stigma,
no
expense
for
the
state,
comparatively
little
default.
There
are, however, disadvantages
that
must
be
borne
in
mind.
The
fine is
not
a
constructive
sanction,
it
may
be seen as virtually alicence to
commit
a
crime
for a fee,
and
it is essentially negative, providing no social
support
for
the
offender.
On
principle
the
fine
would
seem
to
be
appropriate
where
the
court
is
intending
punishment
and
deterrence,
both
specific
and
general,
reform
or
rehabilitation
being
not
called for.
If
the
offence
is
not
too
serious,
the
record
not
too
serious,
and
there
are
mitigating
circumstances,
and
the
matter
can
be
dealt
with
by
a
non-custodial
sentence,
then
the
fine seems
to
be
indicated.
In
practice
the
fine is
imposed
for
practically
every
offence
in
the
calendar,
theft,
aggravated
theft,
criminal damage (R. v.
Thompson
[1974]
Crim. L.R. 720), violence, sex
offences,
drug
offences,
motoring
offences.
Indeed
only
murder
seems
to
be
precluded,
because
the
sentence
is fixed
by
law.
The
crown
court
has a general
power
to
fine (Powers
of
Criminal
Courts
Act
1973
s.30(1)).
There
is no general
statutory
maximum,
simply
the
requirement
that
the
fine shall
not
be excessive
or
unreasonable:
Bill
of
Rights
1688.
The
incidence
of
fining varies
from
one
court
to
another.
Some
judges
and
magistrates have a
keen
sense
of
money
and
its
value,
and
tend
to
fine heavily.
The
perceived
workload
on
the
local
probation
officers
affects
the
extent
to
which
the
court
imposes
more
fines
and
less
probation,
or
fewer fines
and
more
probation,
as
the
case
may
be.
The
more
the
court
knows
about
an
offender,
especially as a
result
of
asocial
inquiry
report
SIR,
the
more
likely
that
probation
rather
than
a fine will be
imposed.
The
absent
offender
is
much
more
likely
to
receive a fine
than
anything
else, for
obvious
reasons,
and
usually ahigher fine
than
if he
had
attended
personally.
Recently
the
Lord
Chancellor
and
the
Home
Secretary
have
been
urging
courts
to avoid
the
custodial
sentence
except
as a very last
resort,
and
this
one
imagines will have
increased
the
tendency
to fine
rather
than
imprison
in
the
borderline
case. In
recent
years
there
has
been
a
distict
tendency
in violence
cases
to
impose
the
heavyfine
instead
of
the
shortish
custodial
sentence.
The
tariff
principle
has
the
obvious
merit
of
promoting
consistency,
because
everybody
starts
at
the
same
thinking
point
or
starting
point.
This
approach
is
acceptable
in
motoring
offences,
but
not
in
common
law offences, e.g.
theft,
because
of
the
potentially
192
To continue reading
Request your trial