Are fines criminogenic? The impact of fines on re-offending in NSW local courts David Tait Justice Research Group University of Western Sydney With Alice Richardson University of Canberra

Acknowledgements BOCSAR Criminology Research Council Colleagues on NSW Sentencing Council

Issues at stake Finding sanctions or treatments that reduce overall cost to society Success of different forms of sanction-time, money, liberty, threat and deferral

A confession Interest in suspended sentences Glittering promise of day fines, tax system to collect fines Then examined the data………

Why fines? Low cost to government Minimises contact with CJS Universal medium of exchange May be homologous with offence type

Propensity matching Used all magistrates with more than 200 cases per year, all local courts Population not sample Matching variables- offence type, priors, counts, bail status, age (priors, count and age log transformed) Offender, magistrate, court and area characteristics used

Variables used Area Disadvantage Sydney/rest of state Court Recidivism level Magistrate Severity – higher than expected use of detention Violent crime as % of case mix

Comparisons Suspended sentences vs prison Suspended vs other sanctions Fines vs other sanctions

Differences in re-offending levels at 2 and 3 years NSW local courts, year3 year (+) suspended higher Prison vs suspended sentences Matched offenders

Fines vs other sanctions Matched offenders Differences in re-offending levels at 2 years NSW local courts, 2006 FineOtherDifference Prison61%51%9% Suspended49%41%9% Good behaviour bond42%37%5% Community service order45%37%8% No conviction order30%20%10%

Differences in re-offending levels at 2 and 3 years NSW local courts, fineprisondifference Indigenous N=28312 year74.5%66.5%8.0% 3 year81.9%77.5%4.4% Non-indigenous N=72112 year56.6%49.1%7.5% 3 year63.9%58.5%5.4% - Fine and prison groups matched on propensity scores (+) suspended higher Prison vs fines for Indigenous and non-indigenous offenders

Area, court and magistrate characteristics Differences in re-offending levels at 2 years NSW local courts, 2001 fineprisondifference Sydney 64%58%6% other 62%56%6% High disadvantage postcode68%60%8% Low disadvantage postcode63%57%6% Magistrates with hi use prison61%54%7% Magistrates with lo use prison66%55%11% Court recidivism quartile lo59%53%7% Court recidivism quartile 466%59%7%

Possible explanations Fines contribute to overall debt levels and family stress Fines one part of chain of sanctions on sentencing ‘career’, they accumulate Prisoners on release often have fine debt remaining Non-payment results in penalty escalation, sometimes through loss of driver’s licence, followed by driving while disqualified conviction No rehabilitative services provided

Data needs to explore issue further Fine payments and debts linked to offender records Fine debt levels for offenders starting and finishing prison or community corrections orders Reason for licence suspension recorded

Possible solutions Fine forgiveness for prisoners – ‘earned’ through participation in programs? Fine discharge through participation in community treatment (anger management, drug therapies, money management) Fine conversion through ‘concurrent hours’ in community service orders already made for other offences Stop link between non-payment of fines and car licences