U3AOS1 Topic 13: Fines, CCOs & Imprisonment

Key Knowledge Dot Point:

Fines, community correction orders, and imprisonment, and their specific purposes.

Note:

This dot point has a lot of content.
High-mark questions relating to this dot point typically assess students’ ability to evaluate how sanctions—such as fines, Community Correction Orders (CCOs), and imprisonment—achieve their specific purposes, including punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of society. In contrast, lower-mark questions generally require students to identify, describe, or explain the use of particular sanctions in appropriate situations, rather than critically analysing their effectiveness. Also, remember to keep in mind that the key skills for this is 'discuss the ability of sanctions to achieve their purposes'.

Imprisonment:

Is a sanction that involves the removal of an offender's freedom and right to liberty and keeping them separated from society for a certain period of time and placing them in prison.
Imprisonment terms can be served concurrently or cumulatively when an offender is charged with multiple offences: cumulative sentences are a sentence of imprisonment or detention that commences after the completion of another and concurrent sentences are a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is served at the same time as another when an offender has been convicted of more than one crime. Indefinite sentences can also be imposed but they are reserved to the most serious offenders.
The penalty scale for imprisonment is in terms of level, whereby each level denotes a specific potential maximum prison term and maximum fine. Level 1 is the most severe with a maximum prison term of life imprisonment, and level 9 is the least severe with a maximum prison term of six months. (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2023)

Factors to consider in relation to whether imprisonment is able to achieve its purposes:

Punishment — Imprisonment achieves punishment by imposing a substantial deprivation of liberty, as the offender is removed from society and placed under strict control for a specified period. Generally, a longer term of imprisonment represents a more severe punishment, as it involves a prolonged restriction on freedom, autonomy, and personal choice. However, the punitive impact of imprisonment is not solely determined by its length. Even short custodial sentences can be highly punishing due to the abrupt loss of liberty, separation from family and community, and the restrictive nature of prison life. As such, imprisonment functions as a powerful form of punishment by directly limiting an offender’s freedom, regardless of the duration imposed.
Punishment — the offender’s circumstances — The extent to which imprisonment operates as a form of punishment can depend heavily on the personal circumstances of the offender. In particular, courts have recognised that where an offender has a mental impairment or cognitive disability, they may be unable to fully comprehend the nature, purpose, or consequences of a custodial sentence. If an offender cannot understand the loss of liberty or the seriousness of imprisonment, the punitive effect of the sentence may be diminished or absent altogether. In such cases, imprisonment may fail to effectively achieve the purpose of punishment, as the offender does not meaningfully experience the sentence as a sanction.
Specific deterrence — length of the imprisonment term — Imprisonment may achieve specific deterrence by imposing a serious restriction on an offender’s liberty, which can discourage them from reoffending due to the negative experience of incarceration. In general, a longer prison sentence may have a stronger deterrent effect, as it involves prolonged separation from society, loss of autonomy, and exposure to the hardships of prison life. However, the effectiveness of imprisonment as a specific deterrent is not uniform and depends on the individual offender. Some offenders may not be deterred by longer custodial sentences, particularly if underlying issues such as addiction, mental illness, or entrenched criminal behaviour are not addressed during imprisonment.
Specific deterrence — nature of the imprisonment term — The ability of imprisonment to achieve specific deterrence depends not only on its length but also on the conditions and experiences of incarceration. Research suggests that prison environments may sometimes normalise violence, reinforce criminal attitudes, or expose offenders to negative peer influences. Rather than discouraging future offending, imprisonment can be traumatic and socially disruptive, particularly if offenders learn or adopt harmful behaviours while incarcerated. In such circumstances, imprisonment may undermine specific deterrence by increasing the likelihood of reoffending, especially where rehabilitation and support programs are inadequate.
General deterrence — circumstances of the offender — General deterrence may be limited where the offender’s circumstances are highly unusual or exceptional, such as where the offender has a serious illness, significant cognitive impairment, or acted under unique personal circumstances. In such cases, the sentence imposed may not effectively deter the broader community, as members of the public are unlikely to view the offender’s situation as comparable to their own. As a result, the sentence may fail to send a clear or relatable warning message to others, reducing the effectiveness of imprisonment in achieving general deterrence.
General deterrence — length of the sentence — The length of an imprisonment sentence can influence its capacity to achieve general deterrence. Longer custodial sentences may send a stronger message to the community that certain conduct is serious and will result in severe consequences. By demonstrating that the courts impose substantial penalties for particular offences, lengthy sentences may discourage others from engaging in similar criminal behaviour, thereby supporting the purpose of general deterrence.
Denunciation — length of the sentence — The length of an imprisonment sentence can influence how effectively it achieves denunciation. Longer custodial sentences are more likely to convey society’s strong condemnation of serious criminal conduct, signalling that such behaviour is unacceptable. In contrast, shorter sentences—particularly those that may be fully offset by time already spent on remand—may fail to communicate the seriousness of the offence, thereby weakening the denunciatory impact of the sentence.
Denunciation — communication of the sentence to the public — For denunciation to be achieved, sentences must be clearly communicated to the public, enabling the community to understand that certain forms of conduct are socially unacceptable and will attract serious legal consequences. Public awareness of imprisonment sentences reinforces societal values by demonstrating that individuals who engage in similar criminal behaviour may face custodial punishment, thereby affirming the community’s moral disapproval of the offending conduct.
Rehabilitation — availability and suitability of programs — The extent to which imprisonment achieves rehabilitation often depends on the availability and appropriateness of rehabilitative programs within the correctional system. Programs that are tailored to an offender’s individual needs—such as those promoting family connection, community support, or behavioural change—are more likely to be effective. Research suggests that maintaining strong family and community ties can improve rehabilitative outcomes, meaning rehabilitation is more likely where programs address the offender’s personal and social circumstances rather than adopting a uniform approach.
Rehabilitation — willingness to participate — Rehabilitation is more likely to be achieved where an offender voluntarily engages in rehabilitative programs. Genuine participation indicates a willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing and address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. In contrast, where participation is compulsory or resisted, offenders may be less motivated to change, reducing the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Voluntary engagement therefore plays a critical role in determining whether imprisonment achieves this sentencing purpose.
Rehabilitation — prospects of rehabilitation — Courts often assess and comment on an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation at sentencing, taking into account factors such as expressions of remorse, insight into offending behaviour, and prior criminal history. Strong prospects may indicate that the offender is capable of reform, increasing the likelihood that rehabilitation will be achieved. While lower prospects of rehabilitation may suggest greater difficulty in achieving reform, rehabilitation may still be possible with appropriate intervention and support.
Rehabilitation — presence of addiction — An offender’s substance abuse or addiction can significantly influence their prospects of rehabilitation. Where offending behaviour is linked to drug or alcohol dependence, successful rehabilitation often requires the offender to acknowledge and actively address their addiction. If an offender is unwilling or unable to confront these issues, the likelihood of rehabilitation is reduced. Conversely, access to effective treatment programs can enhance rehabilitative outcomes and reduce the risk of reoffending.
Protection — length of the sentence — Imprisonment protects society by incapacitating the offender, preventing them from committing further harm while in custody. Longer custodial sentences provide a greater period of protection, as the offender is removed from the community for an extended time. In cases where an offender poses an ongoing risk, indefinite or extended sentences may be imposed to ensure continued protection of the public. Conversely, shorter prison terms offer more limited protection, as the offender returns to the community sooner and may still present a risk upon release.
Protection — circumstances of the offender — An offender’s personal circumstances are highly relevant when assessing the need to protect the community. Factors such as a history of prior convictions, repeated violent behaviour, or a reluctance to engage in treatment may indicate a higher risk of reoffending once released. Where an offender demonstrates entrenched criminal behaviour and resistance to rehabilitation, imprisonment may be more strongly justified as a means of protecting society from further harm.
Protection — whether the offender is treated — Community protection is enhanced where an offender engages in effective rehabilitation and treatment programs while in custody. If the underlying causes of offending—such as substance abuse, mental illness, or behavioural issues—are addressed, the likelihood of reoffending upon release may be reduced. However, the achievement of protection depends on both the availability of appropriate programs and the offender’s willingness to participate. Where treatment is inadequate, resisted, or undermined (for example, by continued access to illicit drugs in prison), the protective benefit of imprisonment may be diminished once the offender returns to the community.

Fines:

Is a sanction that involves the offender being required to pay an amount of money to the state as a consequence for their wrongdoing. It can be imposed alone or in conjunction with other sanctions and with or without a conviction.
Fines are expressed in terms of penalty units, where one penalty unit is 197.59$ (as of July 2024).

Factors to consider in relation to whether fines are able to achieve their purposes:

Punishment — offender’s financial circumstances and ability to pay — The extent to which a fine achieves punishment depends on the offender’s financial capacity. A fine must be sufficiently burdensome to be experienced as a sanction, taking into account the offender’s income, assets, and the seriousness of the offence. If a fine is set too low for a financially well-resourced offender, it may be paid with little inconvenience and therefore fail to punish. Conversely, if a fine is set too high for an offender who lacks the ability to pay, it may never be paid or may encourage further offending—such as theft—to obtain the necessary funds, undermining the punitive purpose of the sentence.
Punishment — amount of the fine — For a fine to operate as an effective punishment, its amount must impose a meaningful financial burden on the offender. While higher fines are generally more punitive, a smaller fine may still achieve punishment where the offence is minor or the offender has limited financial means. Courts must therefore calibrate the fine to both the nature of the offence and the offender’s circumstances to ensure that it operates as a genuine penalty rather than a nominal or excessive sanction.
Punishment — whether the offender is an individual or a company — Where a fine is imposed on a company, its capacity to achieve punishment may be limited if the financial penalty does not personally affect the individuals responsible for the offending. In such cases, the cost of the fine may be absorbed as a business expense, reducing its punitive impact. Unless directors or officers are also held personally liable, fines imposed on corporations may fail to meaningfully punish those whose conduct led to the offence.
Specific deterrence — offender’s financial circumstances and ability to pay — The effectiveness of a fine in achieving specific deterrence depends on the offender’s financial capacity. A fine must have a tangible impact on the offender to discourage future offending, taking into account their income, assets, and personal circumstances, as well as the seriousness of the offence. If a fine is set too low for a financially secure offender, it may be paid with little inconvenience and therefore fail to deter them from reoffending. In such cases, the fine does not function as a meaningful deterrent.
Specific deterrence — amount of the fine — For a fine to deter an offender from committing further offences, its amount must impose a genuine financial burden. While higher fines are generally more effective in discouraging repeat offending, a smaller fine may still achieve specific deterrence where the offender has limited financial means or where the offence is relatively minor. Courts must therefore tailor the fine to the individual offender to ensure it operates as an effective deterrent rather than a symbolic penalty.
Specific deterrence — whether the offender is an individual or a company — When a fine is imposed on a company, its capacity to achieve specific deterrence may be reduced if the individuals responsible for the offending are not personally affected by the penalty. Where the financial cost is absorbed by the company rather than by decision-makers, those responsible may not be discouraged from engaging in similar conduct in the future. As a result, fines imposed on corporations may fail to specifically deter those whose actions led to the offence unless personal liability is also imposed.
General deterrence — amount of the fine and community circumstances — The effectiveness of a fine in achieving general deterrence depends on whether the amount imposed is sufficiently substantial to influence the behaviour of the broader community. Larger fines are more likely to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct, as they signal serious consequences for offending. However, the deterrent impact will vary according to individuals’ personal and financial circumstances, as a fine that is significant for one person may have little effect on another. As such, general deterrence is strongest where fines are calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the offence and are perceived as meaningful by the community.
General deterrence — enforcement of the fine — General deterrence is undermined if fines are not effectively enforced. Where members of the community believe that fines can be ignored or avoided without consequence, the sanction loses its deterrent effect. Consistent enforcement is therefore essential to ensure that fines operate as a credible threat, reinforcing the message that non-compliance will result in tangible consequences and discouraging others from offending.
General deterrence — public awareness of the sentence — For fines to achieve general deterrence, the sanction must be known and understood by the community. Fines are a commonly recognised form of punishment, making it easier for individuals to appreciate their personal impact. Publicising fines through media coverage, regulatory announcements, or online publications can enhance their deterrent effect by increasing awareness of the consequences of offending. For instance, where organisations such as WorkSafe publish details of fines imposed for workplace safety breaches, other businesses within the same industry may be deterred from similar conduct due to increased awareness of the penalties that could be imposed.
Denunciation — nature of the offence and level of the fine imposed — The capacity of a fine to achieve denunciation depends on whether the severity of the fine reflects the seriousness of the offence. Higher-level fines (such as a level 2 fine) are more likely to communicate strong societal condemnation of serious wrongdoing, signalling that the behaviour is unacceptable. In contrast, lower-level fines (such as a level 12 fine) may fail to adequately denounce the conduct if they do not correspond with the gravity of the offence, thereby weakening the court’s expression of moral disapproval to the community.
Denunciation — enforcement of the fine — The denunciatory effect of a fine is significantly strengthened when the sanction is actively enforced. While the imposition of a fine expresses formal disapproval, this message may be undermined if the fine is not collected or consequences do not follow non-payment. Effective enforcement reinforces the court’s condemnation by demonstrating that the disapproval expressed is meaningful and backed by real consequences, thereby affirming to the community that the behaviour will not be tolerated.
Rehabilitation — Although fines are not primarily designed to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour, they may still contribute to rehabilitation by encouraging behavioural change. The financial consequence of a fine can act as a corrective influence, prompting offenders to modify their conduct to avoid future penalties. For example, a fine for speeding may encourage an offender to adopt safer driving habits. In this way, fines may indirectly support rehabilitation by discouraging repeat offending through learned behavioural adjustments, even though they do not directly address deeper personal or social causes of criminal behaviour.

Community Correction Order (CCO):

Refers to a non-custodial, supervised sentence that the offender serves in the community.
Does not involve a prison sentence.
Has conditions attached to the order that aim to make it a flexible order that can be tailored to the offender's circumstances and their offending. CCO's will involve core/standard conditions and at least one additional condition. Not abiding by these conditions is an offence.
Examples of standard/core conditions may include: the offender not reoffending while the CCO is in place, the offender not leaving Victoria without permission and the offender reporting to a community correctional centre and regularly meeting with their supervisor.
Examples of additional conditions may include (but are not limited to): abiding by a curfew, completing 600 hours of community service work and undertaking medical treatment or rehabilitation programs which includes programs for treating individuals with a drug or alcohol addiction.

Factors to consider in relation to whether CCO's are able to achieve its purposes:

Punishment — length of the CCO — The duration of a Community Correction Order can influence its punitive impact. Shorter CCOs may be perceived as less burdensome and therefore less punitive, whereas longer orders—potentially lasting up to five years—can impose sustained obligations and restrictions on an offender’s daily life. The extended supervision and ongoing compliance requirements of a longer CCO are more likely to be experienced as punishment due to their prolonged interference with personal freedom and routine.
Punishment — mandatory conditions — CCOs include mandatory conditions that apply to all offenders, such as requirements to report to a supervisor and restrictions on travel, including not leaving Victoria without permission. These conditions can operate as a form of punishment by limiting autonomy and imposing oversight. However, the punitive impact of mandatory conditions may vary between offenders, and some members of the community may view these requirements as relatively mild compared to custodial sanctions, thereby limiting their perceived punitive effect.
Punishment — nature of additional conditions imposed — A key determinant of whether a CCO effectively punishes an offender is the type and severity of additional conditions imposed by the court. Conditions that significantly restrict liberty—such as electronic monitoring, intensive community work, or curfews—can impose substantial inconvenience and intrusion into an offender’s life. The greater the level of restriction and supervision, the more likely the offender is to experience the CCO as a genuine punishment.
Punishment — extent of restriction on liberty — While a CCO restricts an offender’s freedom, it does not involve a complete deprivation of liberty in the same way imprisonment does. Offenders remain in the community, may continue employment, and maintain family connections. As a result, some may perceive a CCO as less punitive than a custodial sentence. This limitation may reduce the extent to which a CCO achieves punishment, particularly for serious offences where a stronger punitive response may be expected.
Specific deterrence — length of the CCO — The duration of a Community Correction Order can influence its effectiveness as a specific deterrent. A longer CCO subjects the offender to extended supervision, compliance requirements, and court oversight, which may discourage further offending due to the ongoing risk of breach consequences. In contrast, a shorter CCO may have a more limited deterrent effect, as the period during which the offender is monitored and constrained is reduced, potentially weakening its ability to discourage repeat offending.
Specific deterrence — mandatory conditions — The mandatory conditions attached to a CCO can play a significant role in achieving specific deterrence. In particular, the requirement that the offender not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment acts as a strong deterrent, as a breach can result in the offender being resentenced, including the possibility of imprisonment. The risk of further court intervention and harsher penalties can discourage the offender from reoffending during the term of the order, even though these conditions only apply for the duration of the CCO.
General deterrence — nature of the CCO — The extent to which a Community Correction Order achieves general deterrence depends on how restrictive and burdensome the order is perceived to be by the wider community. A CCO that imposes substantial conditions—such as lengthy periods of community work, electronic monitoring, curfews, or intensive supervision—may be viewed as a serious and undesirable sanction. This perception can discourage others from engaging in similar offending behaviour. However, the deterrent effect will vary depending on both the nature and duration of the CCO, as less restrictive or shorter orders may not be regarded as sufficiently punitive to influence community behaviour.
Rehabilitation — conditions imposed — A key way in which a Community Correction Order may achieve rehabilitation is through the imposition of treatment-focused conditions. Conditions such as drug and alcohol treatment, mental health counselling, behavioural programs, or education courses are specifically designed to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. By targeting these root causes, rather than merely punishing the offender, CCOs can support long-term behavioural change and reduce the likelihood of reoffending, thereby enhancing the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing.
Rehabilitation — active participation by the offender — The effectiveness of rehabilitation under a CCO depends heavily on the offender’s willingness to actively engage in imposed programs. Rehabilitation is more likely to be achieved where an offender demonstrates genuine commitment to treatment and continues to address their behaviour both during and after the CCO. Conversely, if participation is superficial or unwilling, the rehabilitative impact of the order may be limited. Sustained engagement beyond the conclusion of the CCO is often necessary for rehabilitation to be meaningful and enduring.
Protection — rehabilitation and deterrence of the offender — Community protection is enhanced in the long term where a CCO successfully rehabilitates and deters an offender from reoffending. If the offender addresses the underlying causes of their behaviour and is discouraged from committing further offences, the risk of future harm to the community is reduced. This is supported by data indicating that the recidivism rate for CCOs in 2021–22 was 10.5 per cent, measured as the return to corrective services within two years. This relatively low rate suggests that CCOs can be an effective sentencing option for reducing reoffending and promoting long-term community safety.
Protection — additional conditions imposed — The protective function of a CCO can be strengthened through the imposition of restrictive additional conditions that limit an offender’s capacity to cause harm while serving the order. Conditions such as exclusion zones, curfews, and judicial monitoring can restrict where an offender may go and how they behave, reducing opportunities for further offending. By actively managing the offender’s conduct within the community, these conditions provide immediate protection to the public while the CCO is in force.

Back: U3AOS1 Topic 12: The purposes of sanctions Next: U3AOS1 Topic 14: Factors considered in sentencing