One reported benefit of the day fine is that it achieves proportionality and equality in sentencing offenders with different financial means. It is equitable because it treats the poor and rich offender the same. And it is proportionate because it fines an offender an amount that the offender is capable of paying. However, critics argue that with day fines, the amount of the fine may be influenced more by an offender’s financial worth rather than by offense seriousness. In other words, a poor person might be ordered to pay a small fine for a relatively serious matter and a wealthy person could be levied a large fine for a minor offense. Consider, for example, that in 2010, a Swiss millionaire was ordered to pay a fine of $290,000 for a speeding violation. The penalty was calculated based on the motorist’s wealth (assessed by the court as $22.7 million) and because he was a repeat traffic offender. “The accused ignored elementary traffic rules with a powerful vehicle out of a pure desire for speed,” the court said in its judgment. Swiss media reported that the man owns a villa with five luxury cars, including the Ferrari he was driving when stopped.
Do you think the fine amount was fair for the Swiss millionaire? How likely would the fine meet the deterrent goal of punishment?
If the fine amount were a set amount, such as in most U.S. jurisidictions, would a much smaller amount still meet the goal of deterrence? Explain why.
