Fines (and taxes) replace the denial of rights, to the advantage of the State

Do we have a right to live among others, or must it be earned?

If a criminal is punished with the imposition of a fine, which must be paid to the State, this does not restrict their access to "civilised" Society instead it provides wealth to the State in the form of the effort required to acquire the money to pay the fine. When a fine is paid, it is no different from ordering the offender to do some work (of a fixed quantity) for the State. This does not prevent the criminal from having access to the freedoms that others share, it only makes them waste some time working for the State.

It does not serve the interests of the injured party (or the rest of Society) if the criminal is not restricted from doing further harm, if they remain a risk. So, in that sense it is a useless punishment.

The interests of the victim (and the rest of Society) are served by being protected from the dangerous behaviour of criminals. We are not protected when a criminal is (only) made to pay a fine...

The rights of Society are not being met when a fine is imposed by the State... the criminal still has access to the infrastructure and environment that others share and nothing has been done to restrict their behaviour.

What good does it do to impose a fine when the criminal is free to continue their behaviour?


Our right to live among others should be taken from us if we are criminal... Or rather, the rights of the remainder of Society should be recognised when they seek to remove a criminal from their company. We should not have to (be required to) earn the right to live among others (innocence should be presumed) but we should (as a Society) have the right to remove a criminal if we are fearful that they are likely to commit further crimes...

Wednesday 29 April 2009