Fines and punishment

There are several reasons why it makes no sense to imprison offenders to whom the sanction of incarceration has been applied for defaulting on a fine for a relatively minor offence. In about half of such cases, the cost of imprisonment significantly outweighs the value of the unpaid fine. Offenders pick up more bad habits in prison, so the punishment can be counterproductive. Defaulters add to the pressure on space and contribute to overcrowding, which can squeeze out rehabilitation programmes.

Yet, according to the latest figures, more than 5200 offenders are imprisoned each year for defaulting on a fine of less than £500. With fiscal fines and compensation being developed as alternatives to prosecutions, the result could be more offenders being imprisoned for defaulting on a fine, an expensive as well as a counterproductive punishment. It was against this backdrop that Cathy Jamieson, Justice Minister in the previous Scottish Executive, announced late last year a package of measures to keep offenders who defaulted on fines of less than £500 for relatively minor offences out of prison and apply community orders instead.

As The Herald reveals today, the SNP government at Holyrood plans to go further by ensuring that no offender should go to prison for defaulting on a fine. This will probably require legislation in a new criminal justice bill but, in the meantime, Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, has made it clear that the Scottish Executive will press ahead with the alternative-to-custody measures, to be introduced next year. These involve Supervised Attendance Orders (SAOs) of up to 100 hours' unpaid work in the community, or training to manage money for relevant offenders. In addition, fine enforcement officers will have powers to seize cash and assets, where applicable, from defaulters who refuse to pay, and will support those willing to meet the cost.

Mr MacAskill also plans to tackle the practice, which involves only some cases, of women opting to go to Cornton Vale to avoid spiralling debts and escape life as lived outside prison. "We will not allow them to lie on their back in prison contemplating life and the universe at a cost to the taxpayer," he says. Such populist rhetoric is unfortunate, given the chaotic and abusive backgrounds of many women in Cornton Vale, but it perhaps stems from a desire to reassure the public that SAOs will not be a soft option. The reassurance is necessary, given that fines are imposed for crimes that can damage individuals and communities.

With plans to extend the sanction to all fine defaulters, the task of demonstrating that they involve an element of reparation for a wrong done will take on an added significance. Mr MacAskill's comments about minor offenders improving the communities they blight by "a bit of sweat and labour" must presumably be seen in this context. But the sanction must also be rehabilitative to be effective, for offender and neighbourhood alike, in the longer term.

There is evidence to suggest community sentences can help put offenders back on the straight and narrow by helping them off drugs and into work. These are goals well worth striving for. But they must be given adequate resources. Staff and funding shortages have, in the past, made the sanction look like the soft option it should not be. In principle, Mr MacAskill's plans merit support. But they require the investment if they are to produce the gains identified, especially as extending SAOs to all fine defaulters will, in all likelihood, add to the bill. Given the potential dividends, which come in money saved on prison criminal justice costs, that investment must be met.