Economic Punishments

Hallevy, Gabriel

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32388-1_6

Gabriel Hallevy²

1041 Accesses

Abstract

The common types of punishment may be divided into physical and economic. Physical punishments are intended to cause physical suffering to the offender, whereas economic punishments are designed to cause economic harm requisitioning some of the offender’s property (money, real estate, etc.). Physical punishments, however, have not only physical effects but economic ones as well, and for their part, economic punishments also have physical effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For the punishment of fine see below at paragraph 6.2.
2.
For the punishment of imprisonment see above at paragraph 5.6.
3.
Below at Table 6.1.
4.
See above at paragraphs 5.6.1 and 5.6.3.
5.
Fiori Rinaldi, Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fines (1976); Gerhardt Grebing, The Fine in Comparative Law: A Survey of 21 Countries (1982).
6.
Sol Rubin, The Law of Criminal Correction (1973).
7.
Georg Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure (1968).
8.
Leon Radzinowicz and Roger Hood, A History of English Criminal Law and Its Administration from 1750 vol. 5: The Emergence of Penal Policy (1986); Peter Young, Punishment, Money and the Legal Order: An Analysis of the Emergence of Monetary Sanctions with Special Reference to Scotland (1987).
9.
Grebing, supra note 5, at p. 6.
10.
Alexis M. Durham III, Crisis and Reform: Current Issues in American Punishment (1994); David Garland and Peter Young, Towards a Social Analysis of Penalty, The Power to Punish 1 (David Garland and Peter Young eds., 1983).
11.
Grebing, supra note 5; Rubin, supra note 6.
12.
Anton M. van Kalmthout and Peter J. P. Tak, Sanctions Systems in the Member States of the Council of Europe (1988).
13.
Gail S. Funke, The Economics of Prison Crowding, 478 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 86 (1985); Thomas Mathiesen, The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ Revisited, 1 Theoretical Criminology 215 (1997).
14.
Claire Whittaker and Alan Mackie, Enforcing Financial Penalties (1997); Hans-Heinrich Jescheck und Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts – Allgemeiner Teil 766–782 (5 Auf., 1996); MDR 1976, 626; MDR 1983, 341; MDR 1985, 76; BGH 26, 325; BGH 37, 226; BGH NJW 1990, 2897; BGH NJW 1995, 67; BGH NJW 1995, 1368; BVerfGE 77, 102.
15.
Michael H. Tonry and Kathleen Hatlestad, Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times: A Comparative Perspective (1997).
16.
Sally T. Hillsman and Silvia S. G. Casale, Enforcement of Fines as Criminal Sanctions: The English Experience and its Relevance to American Practice (1986); van Kalmthout and Tak, supra note 12, at p. 443.
17.
Above at paragraph 5.6.7.
18.
Manfred Zuleeg, Criminal Sanctions to be Imposed on Individuals as Enforcement Instruments in European Competition Law, European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law 451 (Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu eds., 2001); Steve Uglow, Criminal Justice (1995); Douglas C. McDonald, Judith A. Greene and Charles Worzella, Day-Fines in American Courts: The Staten-Island and Milwaukee Experiments (1992).
19.
Alfred Blumstein, Making Sentencing Policy More Rational and More Effective, 25 Isr. L. Rev. 607 (1991); Tomer Einat, How Effective is Criminal Fine Enforcement in the Israeli Criminal Justice System?, 33 Isr. L. Rev. 322 (1999).
20.
Judith A. Greene, Structuring Criminal Fines: Making an ‘Intermediate Penalty’ More Useful and Equitable, 13 Justice System Journal 37 (1988); Nigel Walker and Nicola Padfield, Sentencing: Theory, Law and Practice (1996).
21.
See, e.g., article 63 of the Israeli Penal Code, which provides: “(a) In respect of an offense through which the accused intended to cause another person monetary damage or to obtain a benefit for himself or for another person, the Court may impose on the defendant a fine four times the value of the damage caused or of the benefit obtained through the offense, or the fine prescribed by an enactment, whichever is the greater amount; (b) If a person was convicted of an offense and received some thing as remuneration for its commission or as a means for its commission, then the Court may impose on him a fine four times the value of that thing or the fine prescribed by an enactment, whichever is the greater amount; (c) In determining the amount of the fine under this section, the Court may also take into account the effect which paying the fine will have on the defendant’s ability to compensate the injured party for the damage caused to him by the offense; (d) Setting the fine according to the value of the damage caused or of the benefit obtained shall be at their value on the day the offense was committed or on the day on which the Court’s decision is handed down, whichever is greater”.
22.
See above at paragraph 5.6.7.
23.
Retribution is discussed above at paragraph 2.1.
24.
Deterrence is discussed above at paragraph 2.2.
25.
Rehabilitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.3.
26.
Incapacitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.4.
27.
Above at paragraph 5.6.3.
28.
Above at paragraph 6.2.1.
29.
Retribution is discussed above at paragraph 2.1.
30.
Deterrence is discussed above at paragraph 2.2.
31.
Rehabilitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.3.
32.
Incapacitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.4.
33.
See, e.g., BVerfGE 22, 387; MDR 1989, 1039; BGH 10, 28; BGH 19, 123; BGH 24, 222; BGH 25, 10; BGH StV 1983, 327; BGH StV 1994, 76.
34.
Retribution is discussed above at paragraph 2.1.
35.
Deterrence is discussed above at paragraph 2.2.
36.
Rehabilitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.3.
37.
Incapacitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.4.
38.
See above at paragraph 6.2.1.
39.
Gabriel Hallevy, Therapeutic Victim-Offender Mediation within the Criminal Justice Process – Sharpening the Evaluation of Personal Potential for Rehabilitation while Righting Wrongs under the Alternative-Dispute-Resolution (ADR) Philosophy, 16 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 65 (2011).
40.
Fiori Rinaldi, Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fines (1976); Gerhardt Grebing, The Fine in Comparative Law: A Survey of 21 Countries (1982).
41.
Sol Rubin, The Law of Criminal Correction (1973).
42.
Leon Radzinowicz and Roger Hood, A History of English Criminal Law and Its Administration from 1750 vol. 5: The Emergence of Penal Policy (1986); Peter Young, Punishment, Money and the Legal Order: An Analysis of the Emergence of Monetary Sanctions with Special Reference to Scotland (1987).
43.
Grebing, supra note 5, at p. 6.
44.
Haim H. Cohn, Some Aspects of Justice in Ancient Jewish Law, 46 Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 433 (1977); Joanna Shapland, The Criminal Justice System of Compensation, 24 British Journal of Criminology 131 (1984); Barbara Dockar-Drysdale, Some Aspects of Damage and Restitution, 4 British Journal of Delinquency 4 (1953).
45.
John Ortiz Smykla, Community-Based Corrections: Principles and Practices 219–220 (1981).
46.
Stephen Schafer, Restitution to Victims of Crime (1960); Stephen Schafer, The Victim and his Criminal (1968); Stephen Schafer, Compensation and Restitution to Victims of Crime (2nd ed., 1970).
47.
Randy E. Barnett and John Hagel, Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution and the Legal Process (1977).
48.
Charles F. Abel and Frank H. Marsh, Punishment and Restitution: A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal (1985).
49.
Above at paragraph 2.1.
50.
Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway, Issues in the Correctional Implementation of Restitution to Victims of Crime, Considering the Victim: Readings in Restitution and Victim Compensation 351 (Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway eds., 1975); Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway, Victims, Offenders and Alternative Sanctions (1981); Martin Wright, Making Good: Prisons, Punishment and Beyond 96–103 (2008).
51.
Reparation by the Offender (Advisory Council on the Penal System) 1970 HMSO (1970).
52.
Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice 298–302 (4th ed., 2005).
53.
Joe Hudson, Burt Galaway and Steve Novack, National Assessment of Adult Restitution Programs: Final Report (1981); Smykla, supra note 45, at p. 223.
54.
See articles 130–134 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000, c.6.
55.
Burt Galaway, A Survey of Public Acceptance of Restitution as an Alternative to Imprisonment for Property Offenders, 17 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 108 (1984).
56.
Steven L. Chesney, The Assessment of Restitution in the Minnesota Probation Services, Considering the Victim: Readings in Restitution and Victim Compensation 160 (Joe Hudson and Burt Galaway eds., 1975).
57.
For the probation with no criminal records see above at paragraph 5.7.4.
58.
Retribution is discussed above at paragraph 2.1.
59.
Deterrence is discussed above at paragraph 2.2.
60.
Rehabilitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.3.
61.
Gabriel Hallevy, Therapeutic Victim-Offender Mediation within the Criminal Justice Process – Sharpening the Evaluation of Personal Potential for Rehabilitation while Righting Wrongs under the Alternative-Dispute-Resolution (ADR) Philosophy, 16 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 65 (2011).
62.
Incapacitation is discussed above at paragraph 2.4.
63.
Gabriel Hallevy, Is ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Philosophy Relevant to Criminal Justice? – Plea Bargains as Mediation Process between the Accused and the Prosecution, 5 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2009); Gabriel Hallevy, The Defense Attorney as Mediator in Plea Bargains, 9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L. J. 495 (2009).
64.
See above at paragraph 3.2.7.
65.
For the political philosophy of liberalism see, e.g., Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle 181–204 (1985).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel
Gabriel Hallevy

Authors

Gabriel Hallevy
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Hallevy .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hallevy, G. (2013). Economic Punishments. In: The Right to Be Punished. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32388-1_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32388-1_6
Published: 27 August 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32387-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32388-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics