Judges handing down fines

delux

When judges hand down custodial sentences or even suspended sentences, do they also fine the person?
For example, if a person gets a 2-year sentence for assault would the judge also fine the person?

The reason I ask is I was thinking recently that if judges were to hand down more fines along with "traditional" sentences it would bring more money into the state and also act as a deterrent i.e. hit people in their pockets.
when i read in the paper about people getting custodial or suspended sentences I rarely hear them getting fined.. it seems like an obvious thing to bring in more money in the current climate.
Just to be clear i'm not talking about replacing custodial sentences with fines, but adding a fine to a custodial sentence.

dermot_sheehan

Many persons convicted of serious offences don't have the resources to pay large fines.

They certainly don't have the ability if they can't work while they're locked up.

Also the Courts aren't a place for the State to simply make money. They are a place for the administration of justice. If fines are the appropriate punishment then so be it but the legal process shouldn't be used as a revenue stream.

mystiq

But the huge issue is that people with no money cause a lot of damage, than go in front of court and lie about the remorse and get off with suspended sentences just to commit some other crime (seriously, happens often, right?).

They also give people suspended sentences, not because it's sufficient punishment (cause that's no punishment), but because there is not many places in jail available. How do you get more? Take some assets, changed them into $$ and build some more jails. Everyone would be happy.

That's not even taking into account "compensation" which victims of various crimes often deserve, but don't get cause all this scam that's attacking people around lives out of social welfare and spends everything on drugs & alcohol.

MagicSean

It would be pointless. The fine would have to be imposed with a custodial sentence in default of payment. If a person was doing a stretch in prison anyway then why would they bother paying?

mystiq

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be pointless. The fine would have to be imposed with a custodial sentence in default of payment. If a person was doing a stretch in prison anyway then why would they bother paying?

They wouldn't have to. Repo man's have their existence in many countries for some reason, and that's retrieving money. The damage caused by criminals to the property owned by state and private persons / firms is huge and there is no where to seek compensation for it.

mystiq

mystiq wrote: »

They wouldn't have to. Repo man's have their existence in many countries for some reason, and that's retrieving money. The damage caused by criminals to the property owned by state and private persons / firms is huge and there is no where to seek compensation for it.

If you impose a €3000 fine on many people then in order to realise that amount of money from their physical assets you would need to sell off things they need to survive like cookers, fridges etc as they are unlikely to have any unencumbered assets (house, car, etc) of sufficient value to discharge the fine.

The knock on effect that could have, particularly if the perpetrator has a family, would be massively disproportionate to the intended punishment.

delux

Let's not dismiss this too quickly, let's see if we can tease it out a little..

Many persons convicted of serious offences don't have the resources to pay large fines.
They certainly don't have the ability if they can't work while they're locked up.

That's a good point. Could the judge not base the amount on the personal circumstances of the criminal though, for example an unemployed person might be fined €50, whereas some person on €100,000 would be fined €1000? At least get *something* from every criminal?

If fines are the appropriate punishment then so be it but the legal process shouldn't be used as a revenue stream.

I don't see why not though.. i mean fines are given for some offences like not paying a speeding ticket. Why not have fines for *every* crime?

If a person was doing a stretch in prison anyway then why would they bother paying?

Yea, another good point. If a criminal though has a choice of let's say 2 years with no fine versus 1 year with a modest fine. I think some may take the 2 years but i find it hard to see the majority avoiding the smaller sentence plus fine. Do you not think so?

The knock on effect that could have, particularly if the perpetrator has a family, would be massively disproportionate to the intended punishment.

Yea that's true. I would have thought though a judge would base this on the personal circumstance i.e. make the fine a realistic figure.

crystalmice

This is not a new idea; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_economics

There are many serious criticisms to be made of the idea, not least the potential for allowing people to 'buy' offences

CIARAN_BOYLE

I think it would be a good idea to charge someone who can afford it a fine for time spent in prison. Pay for food and accomodation themselves while in prison ect.