Fines are the most widely imposed penalty in the New Zealand courts. For many minor offenses, and in particular traffic offenses, a fine is the only available option. In 2001, 33 percent of all charges resulting in a conviction had a fine imposed as one of the sentences. This survey of District Court Judges was undertaken before the commencement of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Act includes a presumption in favor of fines where the purposes and principles of sentencing make a fine appropriate. Judges were asked to indicate what they considered to be the main advantages and disadvantages of fines as a sentence. They were also asked what they were trying to achieve when sentencing an offender to a fine. More than a third of the judges indicated that one of the main advantages of fines was that they were a quick and simple sanction. As a disadvantage of fines, most judges mentioned the limited means of many offenders and consequently their inability to pay fines. Most judges agreed that their main goal when imposing fines was simply to punish and several indicated that fines were effective in achieving this aim. Results show that judges are more likely to impose an alternative sentence upon unemployed offenders than to adjust the fine downwards. One of the main reasons given for this was the need to ensure consistency in sentencing. Judges felt constrained by how the public perceives vastly different levels of fines for the same offense. Lack of adequate information, particularly regarding the means of the offender, was considered to be an important factor limiting judges’ ability to adjust the amounts of fines imposed. About two-thirds of the judges said they would never or only seldom ask for a written statement of means. Time pressures were clearly one of the main reasons why this was the case. 21 tables, 8 figures, 5 appendices, 14 references