Zahra Habib
Government: Reducing the fine is lost by the goal of deterrence
The Shura Council will discuss in the next Sunday session the draft law of Article (56) of the Traffic Law, which provides for the termination of traffic violations with reconciliation, and demanding a reduction in the amount of reconciliation to half of the minimum fine within thirty days prescribed for reconciliation, and canceling the seven -day period.
After reviewing the article mentioned in the law, the minimum amounts start from 20 dinars, and do not exceed 100 dinars towards traffic violations involved under the terms of this article (56) of the Traffic Law for the year 2014.
The draft law prepared based on the proposal of a law submitted by the House of Representatives includes the accused who accepts reconciliation paying an amount equivalent to half the minimum fine of the crime within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of the prohibition of reconciliation on it.
The draft law aims to take into account the perpetrator of the traffic violation in light of the wave of high prices that sweep the world, and its great impact on citizens in managing their living conditions and weak material capabilities, and encouraging the perpetrators of traffic violations to accept reconciliation, and what is to reduce the number of cases with the Traffic Court and reduce the burden on judges and empty them to the most important cases.
For its part, the government demanded a review of the draft law, as the goal of criminalization is not only to reward the perpetrator from the crime he committed, but also aims to prevent crime before it occurred, and to deter others from committing it, and accordingly every criminal act had a penalty, either financial or negative for freedom.
The government emphasized that reducing the value of the financial fine or delay in paying it, the traffic violation comprehends its value, and makes the punishment a vast vain, because the purpose of the punishment is to reach a decisive end of the violation in a way that reflects the strength of the law and achieves deterrence.
She explained that Article (56) of the Traffic Law touched on the permissibility of ending it with reconciliation, while granting the General Traffic Department the authority to end the lawsuit before referring it to the Public Prosecution, and given that the amount of reconciliation is an alternative to the criminal punishment, it is the duty of performance without delay.
She drew attention to one of the items of the aforementioned article that reduces the violator, which is that the accused who accepts reconciliation must pay an amount equivalent to the minimum fine for the crime at a period of thirty days from the date of the offer of reconciliation on him, so if the accused takes the payment within seven days following the reconciliation offer, the amount of reconciliation mentioned is reduced to half.
The government indicated that after the end of the reconciliation period, and the case was referred to the Public Prosecution, the latter may re -offer reconciliation to the accused, and if before him he had to pay an amount of no less than a quarter of the maximum fine for the crime.
On the same level, the General Administration of Traffic at the Ministry of Interior affirmed that the draft law preserves the prescribed punishment and its goal of achieving deterrence in its public and private quality, and contradicts the principle of gradualism in reconciliation, which the legislator put in the text of Article (56).
She stressed that going down the amount of reconciliation from the minimum fine to half of the minimum fine during the entire period of the thirty days prescribed for reconciliation, represents a waste of the principle of public deterrence.
The project was met by a law that rejected the Foreign Affairs, Defense and National Security Committee, as the Traffic Law in Article (56) related to ending traffic violations by reconciling in certain crimes stated in Articles (45), (47), (48), (49), (50), (52) of the same law.
The General Traffic Department granted the authority to end the lawsuit before referring it to the Public Prosecution, in order to motivate the perpetrator of the violation to pay the amount of reconciliation, as reconciliation aims to reduce pressure on the courts and the public prosecutor in the eyes of traffic cases in which the matter does not require taking the procedures followed to follow the criminal case.
She emphasized that the draft law aims to reduce the amount of reconciliation to half the minimum in the crimes that are reconciled, instead of paying the minimum fine for the crime subject to reconciliation.
The project also deleted the phrase “If the accused’s payment within the seven days following the reconciliation offer, reduce the amount of reconciliation mentioned in half,” so that it lies in taking into account the perpetrator of the traffic violation, given that the period of seven days is a small period in which it is difficult for the perpetrator to manage half of the reconciliation amount, despite the gravity of the waste that he may commit and which the law authorized reconciliation.
Among the violations in which reconciliation is allowed, exceeding the traffic light stipulated in Article (48), and the driving of the vehicle beyond the maximum speed prescribed by (30%) stipulated in Article (50) of the same law.
The committee pointed out that the financial punishment is an integral part of the punitive policy adopted in any punitive system, through which the legislator aims to push the violator to correct his misconception behavior before developing or resulting in grave violations or crimes that require the deprivation of his freedom.
The committee pointed out that the draft law contradicts the principle of gradient and the speed of the accused’s response to reconciliation, as it came to cancel the period of seven days in a manner that affects the principle of gradient in reconciliation, which is stipulated in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article (56) subject to amendment, which achieves a balance between deterrence and reconciliation.
The committee has not been absent from the steadfast increase in the number of vehicles and traffic congestion, and the wrong behaviors that have become the resentment of road users, a problem facing Bahrain, which is one of the developed countries in traffic but it faces these problems like other countries, which requires finding the necessary solutions and studying the extent of achieving the current penalties for their purposes, not taking into account the perpetrators of traffic violations and mitigating them. It was also stated in the draft law.
