Are there any basic premises that underlie collection/fine administration policy?
Yes. First, sentencing an offender to pay a fine is a policy decision to punish and deter by means of financial deprivation. Second, the choice of a financial penalty is a policy decision to punish and deter without imprisonment.[1] The logical implication of the first premise is that offenders must pay their fines in accordance with the court’s order (regardless of its amount) if the punitive and deterrent intentions of the sentence are to be accomplished. If a fine is fundamentally a noncustodial penalty, then any jurisdiction that must resort regularly to imprisonment for default calls into question the soundness of the fining process itself, not just the character of the offenders. This may imply a failure of the manner in which sentences were initially set, as well as their collection and enforcement.[2] [1] Sally T. Hillsman, “The Growing Challenge of Fine Administration to Court Managers,” Justice System Journal 13, no. 1 (1988): 5, 9-10. [2] Id.
