The Fine Penalties in Norwegian Law: Scope of Application, Measurement, and Enforcement

Fines are a central part of the Norwegian penal system and are increasingly used as an alternative to imprisonment. This article provides an overview of the scope of application, rules for calculation and execution of fines, as well as issues related to the subsidiary imprisonment penalty.

Scope of Application for Fines

Fines are primarily used for minor offenses, particularly violations of regulatory provisions, which abound in modern society. Traffic violations numerically dominate. In some cases, a fine is the only penalty provided by law, but most often the criminal provision gives the judge the option between imprisonment and fines.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards expanded use of fines in cases where conditional or unconditional imprisonment was previously applied. Two groups of cases have particular practical significance:

1. Driving Under the Influence: According to the Road Traffic Act § 31, paragraph 2, the standard penalty for an alcohol concentration between 0.5 and 1.0 per mille is now a fine and conditional imprisonment. At a concentration between 1.0 and 1.5 per mille, the penalty is a fine and either conditional or unconditional imprisonment. Only at a concentration above 1.5 per mille is the standard penalty unconditional imprisonment (plus a fine).

2. Property Crimes: With a law amendment in 1989, fines became part of the regular penalty range for both simple and aggravated theft. The option to use fines also provides a procedural relief as the case can be resolved by issuing a fine instead of bringing it to the court.

The possibilities to replace imprisonment for profit-driven crimes with fines are, however, limited. Those receiving unconditional imprisonment for theft have usually had previous prosecutorial dismissals and conditional sentences, and neither have the ability nor willingness to pay fines.

Fines have an inherently paradoxical character. It is expected that the penalized person, under completely free conditions, will contribute to the implementation of the penalty. This presupposes certain qualities: work and income capability, ability to postpone personal gratification, perseverance, and willingness to fulfill obligations. Fines are therefore an excellent sanction against occasional offenses by more affluent citizens but have weaknesses against offenders who are at odds with society.

Calculation of Fines

The Law's Starting Point

Regarding the calculation of fines, the Penal Code § 27 states:

"When a fine is imposed, consideration should be given to the criminal act as well as to the financial situation of the convicted person and what they are assumed to be able to pay based on their living conditions."

The reference to "the criminal act" includes all circumstances that generally have significance for sentencing. However, the financial situation of the fined person is an additional factor. This is necessary because the same fine will have very different effects on individuals with different financial situations. For the poor, a fine means prolonged sacrifice, whereas for the wealthy, it is merely a momentary inconvenience.

Sentencing Practice

In practice, the consideration given to the offender's financial situation varies with the nature of the offense:

1. Serious Offenses: For more serious offenses, where the alternative would be an unconditional imprisonment, it is necessary for preventive purposes to impose fines that are genuinely felt even by the financially affluent. For driving under the influence with an alcohol concentration between 0.5 and 1.0 per mille, case law has imposed fines equivalent to one and a half months' salary, with exceptions rarely below 10,000 kroner.

2. Economic Crime: For offenses within the business sector, such as violations of rules on prices, currency, working environment, or pollution, often large economic interests tempt to transgression. Here, fines must be high to have sufficient preventive effect.

3. Regulatory Violations: For violations of regulatory provisions, it is possible to take a more schematic approach and impose a reasonable fine without in-depth investigation of the offender's financial situation. Some grading based on financial situation takes place, but it would seem out of place to impose very high fines for minor violations even for wealthy individuals.

Standard Fines

A statutory exception from the rule to consider the ability to pay is found in the Road Traffic Act § 31b regarding fines for traffic violations by simplified fine issuance with fixed fine rates (standard fines). The fine rates are determined by the King. Similar rules on simplified fine issuance with fixed fine rates exist for minor customs violations and certain violations of the Act on Leisure and Small Boats.

The established fine rates by simplified fine issuance have also gained significance for similar cases adjudicated in courts. The Supreme Court has stated that to achieve consistent treatment, norms should be followed by courts unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.

The Subsidiary Imprisonment Penalty

Basic Rule

According to the Penal Code § 28, the judgment must specify an imprisonment penalty from one day up to three months - up to 4 1/2 months in the case of concurrent offenses or misdemeanors - which takes effect if the fine is not paid. The same applies if the case is settled by a fine issuance.

In some cases, no subsidiary imprisonment penalty shall be imposed, such as when a company is fined according to the Penal Code § 48a. This applies not only to legal entities but also to sole proprietorships.

Sentencing Principles

There have been different views on the principles that should be used for setting the subsidiary imprisonment penalty:

1. One view is that the judge should mainly consider what imprisonment would be appropriate for the specific criminal act.

2. Another view is that the subsidiary imprisonment penalty serves merely as a psychological coercive measure to compel payment of the fine, and should therefore be set to provide the convicted with sufficient motivation to pay.

In practice, certain norms for appropriate rates are established through judicial use. For example, in the Alta Demonstration cases, with a normal fine of 3,000 kroner, the subsidiary imprisonment penalty was typically set at 20 days. In intoxication cases, it is normally set at 15 days.

During fine imprisonment when part of the fine is paid, a proportional reduction of the subsidiary imprisonment penalty should occur.

Recovery of Fines

The police are responsible for the execution of imposed penalties, but the actual recovery is carried out by the State Collection Agency. A fine can be allowed to be paid in installments.

The State Collection Agency can decide on a wage garnishment without going through enforcement authorities. Under current conditions, wage garnishment is generally a more effective form of recovery for people in some degree of steady employment than conducting a levy. If the claims are not covered, the Collection Agency may request enforcement from the enforcement authorities.

The fined individual does not have free choice between paying the fine or serving the subsidiary imprisonment penalty. Only if the fine cannot be recovered by wage garnishment or other forced recovery, shall the fine be enforced by serving the subsidiary imprisonment penalty. Decisions on imprisonment are made by the prosecution.

Reform Issues

The number of fine prisoners has significantly decreased over time. In the early 1990s, there was an increase, possibly linked to the expanded use of fines for theft and some other crimes. The number has since reduced again, and in 2003 the daily average number of fine prisoners was 19. A large part of fine prisoners have substance abuse problems, are without permanent residence, employment, or family ties. People with orderly lifestyles and finances normally pay the fine instead of serving the subsidiary imprisonment penalty.

It is naturally unsatisfactory that a matter assessed by the judicial authorities as deserving a fine must be settled with imprisonment. Several reform proposals have been discussed:

1. Court Treatment of Fine Imprisonment: In Sweden and some other countries, no subsidiary imprisonment penalty is imposed in the judgment or fine issuance. If the fine is not paid, the case is brought before the court, which then decides whether the fine should be converted to imprisonment. The Penal Code Commission has proposed that Norway should also switch to this system.

2. Abolishment of Subsidiary Imprisonment Penalty: There has also been discussion about completely abolishing the subsidiary imprisonment penalty for fines. The main objection to this proposal is that it would reduce payment pressure, especially on individuals who do not have funds subject to levy and do not have any stable employment, but who can nevertheless manage to pay if they show goodwill.

The Penal Code Commission has concluded that the option to impose subsidiary imprisonment penalty should not be completely abolished but has proposed a transition to court examination of whether non-payment of the fine should lead to imprisonment.

Conclusion

Fines are an important and flexible part of the Norwegian penal system that are increasingly used as alternatives to imprisonment. The calculation is supposed to take into account the convicted person’s financial ability, but in practice, this varies with the nature of the offense. The subsidiary imprisonment penalty serves as a pressure to ensure payment but simultaneously raises issues when fines must be served by individuals lacking the ability to pay. This has led to discussions about reforms of the system, particularly regarding introducing judicial oversight before fines are converted to imprisonment.