IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v11y2015i3p481-501n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More?

Author

Listed:
  • Kantorowicz-Reznichenko Elena

    (Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE), Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Fines are an efficient method of sanctioning since the burden on the taxpayer for enforcing it is low and the offender is transferring wealth to society. However, using law-and-economics analysis, this paper suggests that the day-fine is a superior model to other forms of fines. This pecuniary measure takes into account the income of the offender and the severity of the offense. Consequently, criminals with different socioeconomic status committing the same crime would pay the same portion of their wealth but not the same absolute amount of money. Using this structure, the day-fine has a potential to deter equally both the rich and the poor and to avoid the costly sanction of imprisonment.

Suggested Citation

  • Kantorowicz-Reznichenko Elena, 2015. "Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 481-501, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:481-501:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2014-0045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2014-0045
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rle-2014-0045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Shavell, Steven, 1992. "A note on marginal deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 345-355, September.
    3. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1984. "The optimal use of fines and imprisonment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 89-99, June.
    4. Polinsky, Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1979. "The Optimal Tradeoff between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 880-891, December.
    5. Polinsky, A Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1992. "Enforcement Costs and the Optimal Magnitude and Probability of Fines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 133-148, April.
    6. Shavell, Steven, 1991. "Specific versus General Enforcement of Law," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1088-1108, October.
    7. Nuno Garoupa (ed.), 2009. "Criminal Law and Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12729.
    8. Niv (Burnovski), Moshe Bar & Safra, Zvi, 2002. "On the social desirability of wealth-dependent fine policies," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 53-59, July.
    9. Becker, Gary S, 1993. "Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 385-409, June.
    10. George J. Stigler, 1974. "The Optimum Enforcement of Laws," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 55-67, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. MacCoun Robert & Pacula Rosalie Liccardo & Chriqui Jamie & Harris Katherine & Reuter Peter, 2009. "Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 347-371, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 2007. "The Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 403-454, Elsevier.
    2. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2009. "Public Enforcement of Law," Chapters, in: Nuno Garoupa (ed.), Criminal Law and Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
    4. Rosario Crinó & Giovanni Immordino & Salvatore Piccolo, 2021. "Criminal mobility, fugitives, and extradition rules," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(1), pages 69-104, February.
    5. Rousseau, Sandra, 2009. "Empirical Analysis of Sanctions for Environmental Offenses," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 161-194, December.
    6. Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, 2011. "Antitrust Enforcement and Marginal Deterrence," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-166/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Eide, Erling & Rubin, Paul H. & Shepherd, Joanna M., 2006. "Economics of Crime," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 205-279, December.
    8. Feess, Eberhard & Wohlschlegel, Ansgar, 2009. "Why higher punishment may reduce deterrence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 69-71, August.
    9. Crinò, Rosario & Immordino, Giovanni & Piccolo, Salvatore, 2019. "Marginal deterrence at work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 586-612.
    10. Jeong-Yoo Kim, 2013. "A note on the non-maximality of the optimal fines when the apprehension probability depends on the offense rate," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 131-138, August.
    11. Marceau, Nicolas & Mongrain, Steeve, 1999. "Dissuader le crime : un survol," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 75(1), pages 123-147, mars-juin.
    12. Friehe, Tim & Miceli, Thomas J., 2015. "Focusing law enforcement when offenders can choose location," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 105-112.
    13. Rosario Crino & Giovanni Immordino & Gülen Karakoç-Palminteri & Salvatore Piccolo, 2018. "Fighting Mobile Crime," CSEF Working Papers 504, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    14. Nøstbakken, Linda, 2008. "Fisheries law enforcement--A survey of the economic literature," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-300, May.
    15. Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, 2018. "Legal Principles in Antitrust Enforcement," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 859-893, July.
    16. Arguedas, Carmen & Rousseau, Sandra, 2012. "Learning about compliance under asymmetric information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 55-73.
    17. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2012. "Escalating penalties: a supergame approach," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 29-49, March.
    18. Rousseau, Sandra & Telle, Kjetil, 2010. "On the existence of the optimal fine for environmental crime," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 329-337, December.
    19. Estrada, Javier, 1994. "Crime and punishment: An introductory analysis in a noncooperative framework," UC3M Working papers. Economics 2912, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    20. Parikshit Ghosh, 2009. "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime or Taliban Justice? Optimal Penalties without Commitment," Working Papers id:2014, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:481-501:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.