The Enforcement Of Fines As Criminal Sanctions

Day fines, as a pecuniary sanction, have a great potential to reduce inequality in the criminal sentencing system, as they impose the same relative punishment on all offenders irrespective of their income. Furthermore, with correct implementation, they can constitute an alternative sanction to the more repressive and not always efficient short-term prison sentences. Finally, by independently expressing in the sentence the severity and the income of the offender, day fines can increase uniformity and transparency of sentencing. Having this in mind, almost half of the European Union countries have adopted day fines in their criminal justice system. For the first time, this book makes their findings accessible to a wider international audience. Aimed at scholars, policy makers and criminal law practitioners, it provides an opportunity to learn about the theoretical advantages, the practical challenges, the successes and failures, and ways to improve.

Although Article 23(5) of EU Regulation 1/2003 provides that competition law fines ‘shall not be of a criminal law nature’, this has not prevented certain criminal law principles from finding their way into European Union (EU) competition law procedures. Even more significantly, the deterrent effect of competition law fines has led courts in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK), as well as the European Court of Human Rights, to conclude that competition law proceedings can lead to a criminal charge. This book offers the first book-length study of whether courts do indeed apply criminal law principles in competition law proceedings and, if so, how these principles are adapted to the needs and characteristics of competition law. Focusing on competition law developments (both legislative and judicial) over a period of twenty years in three jurisdictions – the Netherlands, the UK and the EU – the author compares how each of the following (criminal law) principles has emerged and been interpreted in each jurisdiction’s proceedings: freedom from self-incrimination; non bis in idem; burden and standard of proof; legality and legal certainty; and proportionality of sanctions. The author offers proposals involving both legislative and judicial actions, with examples of judges invoking criminal law principles to develop an appropriate level of safeguards in competition law proceedings. The book shows that criminal law can provide a rich source of inspiration for the judiciary on the appropriate level of legal safeguards in competition law proceedings. As such, it provides an important source of information and guidance for lawyers and judges dealing with competition law matters. "The work is well argued and well researched. Indeed, it is almost encyclopaedic in its use and citation of case law and secondary material....This book provides a valuable resource for anyone (whether as advocate, investigator, adjudicator or academic researcher) who wishes to understand how these criminal law principles are used in, and to protect those subject to, administrative law-based competition investigations.” Bruce Wardhaugh (Lecturer at the University of Manchester) Common Market Law Review, 2021, vol 58, issue 1, page 236

Over seven million Americans are either incarcerated, on probation, or on parole, with their criminal records often following them for life and affecting access to higher education, jobs, and housing. Court-ordered monetary sanctions that compel criminal defendants to pay fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution further inhibit their ability to reenter society. In A Pound of Flesh, sociologist Alexes Harris analyzes the rise of monetary sanctions in the criminal justice system and shows how they permanently penalize and marginalize the poor. She exposes the damaging effects of a little-understood component of criminal sentencing and shows how it further perpetuates racial and economic inequality. Harris draws from extensive sentencing data, legal documents, observations of court hearings, and interviews with defendants, judges, prosecutors, and other court officials. She documents how low-income defendants are affected by monetary sanctions, which include fees for public defenders and a variety of processing charges. Until these debts are paid in full, individuals remain under judicial supervision, subject to court summons, warrants, and jail stays. As a result of interest and surcharges that accumulate on unpaid financial penalties, these monetary sanctions often become insurmountable legal debts which many offenders carry for the remainder of their lives. Harris finds that such fiscal sentences, which are imposed disproportionately on low-income minorities, help create a permanent economic underclass and deepen social stratification. A Pound of Flesh delves into the court practices of five counties in Washington State to illustrate the ways in which subjective sentencing shapes the practice of monetary sanctions. Judges and court clerks hold a considerable degree of discretion in the sentencing and monitoring of monetary sanctions and rely on individual values—such as personal responsibility, meritocracy, and paternalism—to determine how much and when offenders should pay. Harris shows that monetary sanctions are imposed at different rates across jurisdictions, with little or no state government oversight. Local officials’ reliance on their own values and beliefs can also push offenders further into debt—for example, when judges charge defendants who lack the means to pay their fines with contempt of court and penalize them with additional fines or jail time. A Pound of Flesh provides a timely examination of how monetary sanctions permanently bind poor offenders to the judicial system. Harris concludes that in letting monetary sanctions go unchecked, we have created a two-tiered legal system that imposes additional burdens on already-marginalized groups.

"Justice is expensive. So is injustice. These kinds of judgments are usually made in terms of money, and an economic focus makes sense in the context of criminal law and procedure, since money has long played a role in how society deals with unlawful behavior. These economic sanctions, the court-imposed financial obligations that follow a criminal conviction, are useful because they apply a metric that is understood by everyone. The notion of using money as a means of resolving criminal and civil problems goes back almost four thousand years, to the Code of Hammurabi (Van Ness, 1990), and there are several Biblical injunctions regarding payment after crimes. In the Middle Ages, victims were entitled to compensation for injuries (adjusted for their rank in society), and by the twelfth century, the king was entitled to a fee for administering the system (Klein, 1997)"--

Money is the most frequently means used in the legal system to punish and regulate. Monetary penalties outnumber all other sanctions delivered by criminal justice in many jurisdictions, imprisonment included. More people pay fines than go to prison and in some jurisdictions many of those in prison are there because of failure to pay their fines. Therefore, it is surprising how little has been written in the Anglophone academic world about the nature of money sanctions and their specific characteristics as legal sanctions. In many ways, legal innovations related to money sanctions have been poorly understood. This book argues that they are a direct consequence of the changing meaning of money. Considering the ‘meaninglessness’ of modern money, the book aims to examine the history of changing conceptions in how fines have been conceived and used. Using a set of interpretative techniques sensitive to how money and freedom are perceived, the genealogy of the penal fine is presented as a story of constant reformulation in response to shifting political pressures and changes in intellectual developments that influenced ideological commitments of legislators and practitioners. This book is multi-disciplinary and will appeal to those engaged with criminology, sociology and philosophy of punishment, socio-legal studies, and criminal law.