Tímarit lögfræðinga - 01.10.1989, Side 17

In the case of non-payment the fine is replaced by the defaulter’s
detention in conformity with an arbitrary decision of the judge which
is already part of the sentence. This regulation, if I am correct, is
also the system provided for by the General Icelandic Criminal Law
and applied by the courts in this country.
b) The other legislative model for the regulation of the fine is the
daily-rated fine system. It was invented in the Scandinavian countries
and is applied in Finland, Sweden and Denmark, but not in Norway
and not, as already mentioned, in Iceland. The character of the day-
fine system consists in the formal division of the procedure determin-
ing the fine in two easily recognizable stages. There is first the measur-
ing out of the amount of one day-fine according to the earning capa-
city, the financial situation, and the obligations of the accused. Second
there is the determination of the number of days imposed according
to the importance of the offence and to the grade of culpability of the
offender. The number of days is the multiplier for the sum of one
day-fine, the result of the multiplication is the total amount to be
paid. If the fine is not paid, according to German law, one day is
equivalent to one day of detention, whereas in Austria two days of
the fine correspond to one day of detention, a regulation which satis-
fies more the sentiment of justice, because loss of liberty is a more
drastic sacrifice than only paying money.
The Scandinavian day-rated fine system has had a remarkable
success in recent times: it has been adopted in the Federal Republic
of Germany, in Austria, Portugal, France, Hungary, Brazil, where it
is based on an old legal tradition, and also in the Swiss and Spanish
criminal code drafts. German experience with it looks satisfactory.
The new system has led to better visibility of the two stages in measur-
ing out the total amount of the fine. Taken into account are, first the
economic conditions of the accused, and second the importance of
the offence and the grade of culpability of the offender. Furthermore,
it allows for a better adaptation of the definite amount of the fine to
the economic situation of the accused, because income and obligations
are a separate factor in the multiplication which leads to the final
result. The importance of the financial situation of the accused as a
separate factor in assessing the sentence makes it easier to arrive at
a proportionally equal financial burden for all convicted persons being
sentenced to a fine. Thus on the one hand the principle of equality of
the sacrifice is preserved. On the other hand the second factor of the
159