Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of a crime and the motivation for committing it should be considered when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some have claimed that laws should impose serious repercussions for every crime, regardless of the circumstances that led to the commission of the crime. Others disagree with this assertion, believing that the judge’s role is to render an impartial judgment for each case on its own, taking into account the evidence and circumstances that are specific to it.
The first claim’s proponents emphasize the importance of community safety because, in their view, keeping criminals out of society would ensure everyone’s protection. In the sense that people would refrain from engaging in any illegal activity if they knew that attorneys could not protect them from legal pitfalls and that they would receive lengthy prison terms. To demonstrate this idea, consider the fact that numerous studies have revealed that jail is the top response from young people when asked what keeps them from committing crimes. In other words, they fear living out their lives in prison alongside other murderers.
The opponents of this view maintain that ignorance can occasionally lead to people signing forged documents or engaging in illegal activity. They also emphasize that some people might kill out of self-defense or by accident. Therefore, judges have the right to sentence them fairly so long as they did not imperil others or commit additional crimes. For instance, a sizable number of individuals across the globe did not receive a jail sentence since the judge and jury ruled them innocent.
The aforementioned arguments demonstrate unequivocally that finding harsh punishments for lawbreakers is the key to enforcing the law. It also emphasizes the necessity of using discretion to apply the law equitably and honestly.