Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The fine is one of the oldest penal sanctions in history. According to Bonneville de Marsangy (1864: 260), “There was even a time where all the sanctions were fines.” The first form of human justice was the idea of simple vengeance, an eye for an eye. After this, the idea of compensation and reparation of the “prejudice” (the injury or damage) appeared. In numerous legal systems, money compensation replaced private vengeance. In Rome, the fine was considered the main penal sanction, whereas imprisonment was only a particular kind of torture. During the sixth century, the Germans created a system with two kinds of sanctions: the wergild and the fredum. The wergild represented the compensation given to the victim and/or to the victim's family to avoid their private vengeance. The fredum was a certain amount of money to be paid to the authorities to diminish the public trouble caused by the crime and to make sure that the authorities enact the “peace treaty” concluded by the payment of the wergild. According to some authors, the fredum is the forerunner of the current fine system, the wergild having lost its importance through the centuries. However, other historians think that today's fines are the result of a progressive junction of fredum and wergild.

Wherever the truth may be, today's fine system seems to have many advantages. Contrary to imprisonment, it does not take the condemned person away from his or her family; it does not push him or her to give up working; it does not cost society a lot of money and may even be lucrative. But every coin has a flip side: Fining privileges the rich to the prejudice of the poor, gives the idea that one can buy impunity and the right to commit crimes, and affects not only the offender but also his or her whole family.

Individual or Collective Sanctions

One of the main principles of criminal law is that a person who commits a crime has to be punished and, consequently, that a person who did nothing wrong should not be punished. Unfortunately, that “no crime, no sanction” principle is not respected by the fine—fines affect the offender's family by diminishing the family's budget. In other words, the fine is not an individual sanction, but a collective one.

Although the same argument could be made with other sanctions (e.g., incarceration, community service), these penalties touch primarily the offender, and only indirectly his or her family. In the case of a fine, the sanction affects the economic resources of the entire family. Therefore, each family member is directly and equally touched by a fine. Politicians and criminologists around the world are aware of this problem, but no one has yet found an acceptable solution. Because every fine system also affects innocent people, the fine sanction is inherently unfair.

The Goal of the Sanction

Sanctions may have several goals, such as punishment, rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, elimination (death penalty, expulsion, incapacitation), reconciliation, and reparation. Rehabilitation is the main goal of most criminal justice systems around the world. Fines, however, can be imposed only for punishment, deterrence, and eventually, reparation; they cannot serve the goal of rehabilitation. Here again, there is no solution to the problem. One has to accept that fines almost have no educational potential for offenders, except with regard to deterrence.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading