Abstract
AbstractAmong the advocates of expressive theories of punishment, there is a strong consensus that monetary fines cannot convey the message of censure that is required to punish serious crimes or crimes against the person (e.g., rape). Money is considered an inappropriate symbol to express condemnation. In this article, I argue that this sentiment is correct, although not for the reasons suggested by advocates of expressivism. The monetary day-fine should not be understood as a simple deprivation of money, but as a punishment that reduces the offender’s capacity to consume for a certain period of time. Conceived in this manner, I argue that it is perfectly suitable to convey censure. However, the practical impossibility of ensuring that the person who pays the fine is the same person who has been convicted of the offense seriously undermines the acceptability of the monetary fine as an instrument of censure. Minimizing the risk of the fine’s hard treatment being transferred to third parties is a necessary condition for the monetary fine to be considered a viable alternative to lengthy prison sentences.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference90 articles.
1. Aebi, Marcelo F., et al. (2014), European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, 5. Ed., Helsinki European United Nations Institute.
2. Barnett, Randy E. (1977), “Restitution: A New paradigm of Criminal Justice.” Ethics 87(4), 279-301.
3. Baumann, Jürgen. (1963), “Von den Möglichkeiten einer Laufzeitgeldstrafe: Erwiderung auf den kritischen Beitrag von Lackner zu meinem Gegenentwurf.” Juristenzeitung 18(23/24), 733-739.
4. Beckett, Katherine/Harris, Alexes. (2011), “On Cash and Conviction: Monetary Sanctions as Misguided Policy.” Criminology & Public Policy 10(3), 505-537.
5. Bennett, Christopher. (2008), The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment, Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献