KEY POINTS:
For some time, the Government tossed around the concept of setting fines according to wealth. Rich people would pay more for, say, breaking the speed limit simply because they could afford to. Wisely, the idea was dropped. Now, however, the Government has set off on a similar tack, suggesting that criminal offenders on low incomes may face punishments other than fines. It is yet another notion that owes far more to the politics of envy than any tenet of balanced justice.
According to a Cabinet paper, alternatives such as warnings as well as lower fines and enforcement penalties are being considered for young and poor offenders. The rationale seems to be that the impact of a standard fine on a single person earning $80,000 a year is vastly different from that on a solo mother or an unemployed youth. The latter two will see the fine as beyond their means and simply decline to pay it.
As a flipside to this, the Government's shake-up of the infringement system would see tough action against those who can afford to pay. Given that about a third of fine defaulters are in this category, there can be little quibble with this emphasis. Nor can there be any argument with the Government's desire to lower the proportion of overdue fines, which stands at 54 per cent. Its determination has led to several worthwhile initiatives over the past few years. People owing large amounts in fines are now barred from leaving the country under a "pay or stay" law, and there has also been a "name and shame" campaign and beefed-up data matching.
However, the idea of applying a different standard of penalty to the young and poor has no place in any reputable justice system. Essentially, it breaches the basic principle of all people being treated fairly and equally - no matter the size of their bank accounts. Judges can take account of an offender's ability to pay. But people should not get favourable treatment as a matter of course because they are young or in a low-paid job. This proposal would also be akin to the Government running up the white flag in the matter of unpaid fines. It would be an admission that respect for the justice system had reached such a low that there is no point in tackling those who say they cannot pay. Never mind that soon everyone appearing before the courts would be claiming dire circumstances.
This lack of respect is, in fact, the core reason for the large number of unpaid fines. Just as laws act as a deterrent only when they are enforced, so it is for the penalties for breaking those laws. The Government has wide powers to collect unpaid fines. The property of defaulters can be seized, as happened during a blitz against boy racers in Hamilton late last month. Money can also be taken directly from a person's wages or benefits. The problem, therefore, lies not in the powers of collection but in the fact that not enough of the money is collected efficiently. Disrespect is widespread because fine defaulters do not face the consequences of their contempt often enough.
The Courts Minister, Rick Barker, has identified one of the reasons for this. More than 100 agencies are involved in the collection of fines, and there has been a rapid growth in the number of infringement rules and punishments. This suggests the need for a quicker and simpler system for imposing and collecting penalties. It may be that an umbrella body is needed as part of the rationalisation of both the regulation of infringements and the authorities that impose fines. Not required is a process that would unfairly advantage the young and the poor. A credible justice system ensures crime does not pay - whatever the circumstances of the offender.
