▶ Your Answer :
Fixing punishments for each type of crime has been a debatable issue. On the one hand, it is argued that fixed punishments would be imperative to establish social stabilisation and security. On the other hand, taking other various factors such as motivation for a certain crime into consideration should be prioritised. In this regard, this essay will briefly discuss both arguments for and against fixing punishments by outlining some of its main points.
First of all, the obvious argument in its favour is that fixing punishments would give rise to a deterring effect on society. If there were well-established regulations or laws for each type of crime, people would not likely commit the crime in the first place. Moreover, if people could convince the court or the jury of a reason for having committed the crime and possibly try to get away with what they are accused of, penal decisions would be largely arbitrary and thus, equity cannot be achieved as a result of such subjective approaches of different courts.
Some naysayers claim that considering motivation and a reason is an inevitable process. For instance, a person killing in self-defence should not be compared to a serial killer, moving from one victim to the next. Additionally in some countries, a person being held liable for stealing food for instance, during a famine period will be exempted, taking into consideration the hunger.
It is thought that a form of compromise seems to be the best solution. There have to be fixed punishments for all crimes but the circumstances and motivation for commitment should be a priority before anything to ensure justice and equity.
|