Methodology
The first step in our methodology was to precisely identify the offender behaviours of interest. Working in collaboration with JUS, we identified three important behaviours influenced by fine levels:
- Decision to offend: What fine level or amount is substantial enough to deter individuals from committing initial offences? This involves understanding the threshold at which fines move from being seen as acceptable (i.e., seen as a “minor cost”) to becoming a deterrent and preventing offending behaviours.
- Response to Fine: At what fine level or amount are offenders likely to accept imposed fines versus opting to challenge them in court? This includes analyzing factors that contribute to perceptions of fairness, ability to pay, and one’s propensity to appeal fines.
- Decision to Reoffend: Does the experience and penalty of an initial fine effectively discourage subsequent offences? This looks at the long-term impact of fines on behaviour change.
We then conducted a review of the relevant academic and gray literature. Our scope of research included studies specific to fine setting, legislative frameworks, and broader economic, psychological, and criminological literature on penalties, disincentives, deterrence mechanisms, and offending behaviour. While this review was not exhaustive, it was substantial, including a total of 44 sources.Footnote 1 We summarized the available evidence using the following approach:
- We compiled a list of all the factors that have proven or hypothesized to influence the three behaviours of interest.
- We determined which of these factors could be influenced by fine levels or amounts, the direction of the effect, and the proposed mechanism for the effect. We also assessed the relative strength of the underlying evidence.
- We consolidated our analysis to set out a framework of the most important factors or drivers to consider in setting fine amounts and fine structures.
To enhance the depth and applicability of our findings, we integrated insights from a jurisdictional scan into our analysis. This included a review of similar legal frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Our aim was to better understand how fine amounts are currently established and updated, how effective they are in deterring minor offences (similar to contraventions), and what complementary strategies are used to deter offending behaviours. We also conducted three semi-structured interviews with academic experts from the United Kingdom and Australia whose research specializes in the impact of fines on offending behaviours. (Most of their research focused on driving offences, which constitute a subset of the offences covered by the Contravention Act.) This input allowed us to capture a practical perspective on the deterrence efficacy of fines (see interview notes in the Appendix for more details).
Using this research, we developed a high-level framework or “model of deterrence” to categorize the most relevant drivers influencing offending, challenging of fines, and re-offending behaviours.
Potential drivers influencing behaviour
Potential drivers influencing behaviour – Text version
Potential drivers influencing behaviour
This is a figure with a flow chart with a title “Potential drivers influencing behaviour”. The figure has four grey rectangles encompassed by a dark blue rectangle outline which flows down into three light blue rectangles below. There is an orange circle on the right side of the flow chart in between the two sets of rectangles with the text: “Which drivers can we influence with fine amounts?”
The grey rectangles include the following text: “Perception of offence”; “Perception of punishment”; “Environmental drivers”; “Individual drivers”. The light blue rectangles have the following text: “Likelihood of committing offence”; “Likelihood of challenging a fine”; “Likelihood of reoffending after fine”.
- Date modified: