Tímarit lögfræðinga - 01.10.1989, Page 18

multiplication, i.e. the number of day-fines imposed by the judge, re-
presents the gravity of the unlawful act and the importance of the
guilt. In this way the two criteria of measuring the fine are clearly
separated and identified, which serves the idea of transparency of the
sentence. Unfortunately, trial reports by the mass media usually ne-
glect the different significance of these two factors. They publish the
final result only instead of making the two stages perceptible. If the
Icelandic legislator wants to consider the daily-rated fine system as
a possibility for criminal law reform in this country, much juridical
and empirical material is available to help him estimate the merits
and disadvantages of this system.
4. Community service. — A new sanction, recently rediscovered
and used in some countries as a genuine punishment in criminal law,
is community service. The fundamental idea is to replace imprison-
ment by a restriction of leisure-time and to impose on the convicted
person the obligation to compensate for his wrong-doing by a positive
action in favour of the community.
a) First applied in England in 1972, community service as an inde-
pendet penalty consists in the condemnation of the convicted person
to work a certain number of hours (between 40 and 240) in the
interest of the community. He may do so by cleaning and maintaining
public places, gardens, cemeteries and parks, by helping in hospitals
and homes for elderly or handicapped persons, by assisting the
qualified personnel in the protection and reconstruction of the environ-
ment, by working in places for the storing of garbage, and so on.
Experience shows that community service can function if it is well-
organized by a public agency. Countries which have introduced it as
a genuine penalty for offences of petty and medium importance, fol-
lowing the English model, are France, the Netherlands, Denmark,
Norway and Finland. Sweden has refused community service because
it is thought that work as a highly valued good for mankind should
not be used for inflicting suffering on somebody who has committed
a crime. Another objection is that people sentenced to imprisonment
according to Swedish experience will often not be able to do an ap-
propriate job in cooperation with others within the community service
schemes. Moreover, there is a feeling that ordinary workmen would
feel discriminated, if their skills would be used to punish delinquents
for their offences. This may be an objection to community service in
160