Fine or imprisonment

j1979p

I've always wondered about this type of wording in law:

... shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

To me, 3 months imprisonment is a lot harsher than £500, yet both are the maximum allowable actions against the offender which would imply that they are seen as equivalent in the eyes of the law.

How can a judge be allowed to sentence someone to 3 months in prison but cannot give a fine of more than £500? Seems a bit mad?

I would happily pay out £2000 or more rather than spend 3 months in prison. Why does the law not allow for this scenario?

GerardKeating

j1979p wrote: »

How can a judge be allowed to sentence someone to 3 months in prison but cannot give a fine of more than £500? Seems a bit mad?

when was this passed, perhaps them, £500 was a lot of money.

j1979p

GerardKeating wrote: »

when was this passed, perhaps them, £500 was a lot of money.

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 - section 6

Conall Cernach

Conversely there are also some people to which a 3 month sentence would be like water off a duck's back. They'd only be in for a portion of that anyway and all their mates would be there too.

GerardKeating

j1979p wrote: »

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 - section 6

So amount €1000 now.

j1979p

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Conversely there are also some people to which a 3 month sentence would be like water off a duck's back. They'd only be in for a portion of that anyway and all their mates would be there too.

I'm sure those very same people you are talking about would easily be able to access 500 to secure their freedom

j1979p

GerardKeating wrote: »

So amount €1000 now.

Maybe it's just me but I'd equate 3 months in prison with a lot more than €1000.

A related question I have is how does the judge decide whether to ask someone to pay the fine vs imprisoning them? I assume the offender has no choice in the matter?
Obviously one of the factors would be if the offender cannot pay the required amount. Maybe another one could be if the offender had ever done time before?

Mjolnir

Punitive punishments don't always account for inflation in the legislation. Sometimes to a humourus result.
A punishment is just a deterrent for the most part until handed down and shouldn't out weight the crime. Rather to deter the average member of the public from committing the act that leads to it.
To some both are equally harsh, others one is better, depends on personal circumstances really.

Peregrinus

The fact that the sentencing options include both a fine and imprisonment does not mean that the maximum fine and the maximum custodial sentence are seen as equivalent; not at all. Quite the opposite; the point here is to give the court a flexible range of options, recognising that the offences that come before them will range from minor (first offence, no history of offending, guilty plea, attempt to make amends) to very serious (repeat offender, aggravating circumstances, etc), and their need to be a corresponding range of sentences from mild to severe. A low fine is at the mild end of the range; the maximum custodial sentence is at the most severe.