Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The recent decades have witnessed an ever-increasing concern about punishments of each type of crime. Nonetheless, a staggering number of individuals insist that punishments should be subject to certain considerations. In this sense, whether a fixed punishment for each type of crime is beneficial or detrimental to the general public is yet to be ascertained.
First and foremost, the deterring effect of fixed punishments convinces potential-criminals to reconsider their act. It is imperative to let the general public realise the punishment that they would receive. Hence, being imprisoned, criminals lose their freedom, which prevents potential law-breakers from committing offences. Furthermore, injustice which is based on arbitrary subjective judgement of the court would be minimised.
From another stance, it is widely deemed that taking circumstances of a crime and its motivation into consideration is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity. To exemplify, a killing in self-defense and a murder should not have the same punishment, even though a life has been taken in both cases. Consequently, a strictly fixed punishment is unsuitable in a scenario of this nature.
Viewed as a whole 7, it is fair to assert that fixed punishments lead to social stability and security by their deterring effects. On the basis of my observation, fixed punishments with maximum and minimum penalties would be a more suitable approach in a decision of a person being held liable for a crime. As a result, justice and equity would be enhanced to a grand extent.