Community Legal Centres Tasmania will use the It’s Not Fine campaign to argue those on a pension should not be fined the same amount as a millionaire.

They argue that Tasmanians are sentenced with the same fine for the same offence, however, the impact could be significantly different depending on income.

An example given is mandatory minimum fines for drink driving. If someone is caught driving with an alcohol level of 0.05 or more but less than 0.1, the minimum fine is $350.

The It’s Not Fine campaign reasons that a fine for a university student or someone on a pension would have more of an impact than someone in a well-paying job. Therefore the hardship is greater.

This argument was met with criticism from readers. Many referred to the old adage: if you do the crime, you do the time.

The justice system operates to punish and deter crimes. Judges hand out a sentence, which includes fines, with four factors in mind – retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation.

When choosing a penalty, judges take into account personal and criminal history, potential loss of income, family impact and remorse.

It could be argued that those on a lower income could feel the impact more financially. To continue using the drink-driving example, a $350 fine could have a more detrimental effect on a family’s budget.

There are arguments that those who are wealthier wouldn’t see that fine as a punishment. Therefore, we should be looking at the maximum penalties, not the minimum. But if you flip the argument again, why should those with a high income have a harsher penalty just because of their income? Afterall, the same crime was committed.

Crime and punishment should not be focused on “fairness”. It should be focused on rehabilitation and repercussions for offences. A crime is a crime and the justice system has solid processes in place to deliver the repercussions.

It’s meant to be a punishment. The fines should deter. Unfortunately, we do have a higher proportion of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds in our courts.

Instead we should be focusing on why people who are financially disadvantaged are committing crimes and try preventative methods.