IT IS INDICATED THAT A FINE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT HAS THE PRESENT OR SHORTLY ANTICIPATED ABILITY TO PAY IT; THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE BURDEN OF THE PAYMENT OF THE FINE WILL FALL ON THE OFFENDER; AND PRIOR CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF REPARARATION TO THE VICTIM. THE FINE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE FULL RANGE OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES IS RECOMMENDED. HOWEVER, IT IS BELIEVED TO BE OF SPECIAL VALUE IN DELAYING WITH MINOR INFRINGEMENTS OF TRAFFIC LAWS AND IN CASES WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS GAINED A KNOWN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE FROM HIS OFFENSE OR HAS CAUSED A KNOWN FINANCIAL LOSS. FINES COMBINED WIH TOTAL IMPRISONMENT ARE FELT TO BE APPROPRIATE WHERE THE OFFENDER GAINS AND RETAINS POSSESSION OR CONTROL OVER A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT FROM HIS OFFENSE. FINES COMBINED WITH PROBATION ARE BELIEVED USEFUL IF THEY PROVIDE A DETERRENT AND EDUCATIONAL FACTOR IN THE COURSE OF THE REHABILITATION PROCESS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FINES SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN UNITS RATHER THAN DOLLARS, WITH THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE UNIT BEING FLEXIBLE TO VARY ACCORDING TO THE OFFENDER'S ABILITY TO PAY AND CHANGES IN THE COST OF LIVING. EACH OFFENSE WOULD CARRY A SPECIFIED MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS. A CONSISTENT PRACTICE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, AT LEAST WITHIN THE CATEGORES BASED UPON TYPES OF OFFENSE, WITH GRACE PERIODS BEFORE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEGUN. IF DEFAULT OCCURS, INITIATIVE TO COMMENCE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD REST WITH THE CROWN OR POLICE PROSECUTOR, WHO SHOULD SELECT THE APPROPRIATE MEANS. MEANS OF RECOVERY WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE USUAL METHODS FOR THE COLLECTION OF CIVIL DEBTS, INCLUDING ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS, WITH IMPRISONMENT BEING AVAILABLE AS THE ULTIMATE PENALTY. IF IMPRISONMENT BE ORDERED, IT IS FELT THE TERM SHOULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE, BUT RATHER TO THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER. (RCB)