The difficulty from a practical perspective is that the discretion of the judges is such that they never or very seldom impose them. For the most part, I noticed it as an afterthought of the judge not to impose it. My point is on the proportion, the fair amount. There is no way in the world that you're going to convince me that criminals pay, through fines or surcharges, anything close to what they cost society as a whole.
My question is, do you think criminals should pay financially for their crimes, which are caused as a result of intention and obviously damage people psychologically and property-wise, or do you think the state should come along and carry the burden of criminals?