Punishment
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.
留言
發佈留言