Conclusion

A complex interplay of factors determines how fine amounts impact individuals’ decisions to offend, challenge fines, and to reoffend after being finedunder the Contravention Act. Our literature review, interviews with experts, and background in behavioural science theory identified six key findings:

  1. While traditional economic models (e.g. rational choice theory) indicate that larger fine amounts will increase deterrence in a linear fashion, the relationship is more complex, weaker, and contingent on context.
  2. The contextual factors that matter most include perceived fairness, proportionality, and moral judgements about the nature of the offence.
  3. Increasing the salience, certainty, and speed of fines can increase their deterrence value, in some cases more than an increase to the fine amount (or alongside it).
  4. Other opportunities to increase deterrence effects beyond fine increases include communications that enhance the perceived fairness of the fine or that appeal to social norms related to the offence (e.g. that the offence is uncommon or undesirable to the community).
  5. Higher fines can undermine equity where they disproportionately impact people with fewer resources or other types of vulnerability. However, innovative approaches like means-tested fines can help address these concerns.
  6. While higher fines are more likely to be challenged and taken to court, there is no definitive data on the relationship between fine amounts and the likelihood of challenges. We recommend analyzing non-public, administrative data to understand the tradeoff quantitatively, or conducting a trial to measure it.

Overall, policymakers should consider a balanced and context-specific approach to fine setting, taking into account the psychological and environmental factors that influence an individual’s decision to offend. Additionally, addressing equity concerns by considering an individual’s ability to pay and complementing fines with alternative penalties can help strike a balance between deterrence and fairness.

Further research is needed to understand the impact of fine amounts on challenging behaviour and to inform more effective policy interventions. By considering these recommendations and continuing to refine fine-setting practices, the Department of Justice can design fine systems that achieve their intended objectives effectively and sustainably.