Crime and punishment is a discussion, far before I was even born. Others believe that society should have a specific penalty per violation committed, while others don't share the same belief, rather, believing that all crimes should go through a trial to understand why the misbehavior was done. In this essay, I will discuss both sides, and agree on the latter, that there should be a process to consider the situation before one can determine the strength of the stick to use.
Having a menu to look at, matching misconduct to punishment will make the whole judging of a criminal process extremely simpler and faster, deterring criminals to even dare commit an offense. A possible future offender, seeing the penalty of misbehavior in full disclosure, indeed, would instill fear in the individual, discouraging him or her to perpetrate a crime. If killing someone, for instance, would have an immediate punishment of the death penalty, then very few would even think or plan of taking someone's life, as it would mean taking his own life in the process as well. However, if the act of killing may have different penalties based on varying factors, then someone may brilliantly devise a way or alibi to get a minimum sentence. Having unchanging punishments for a violation, as such, would undoubtedly discourage individuals to commit one, especially for severe penalties.
Having a trial to understand what happened, understand behavior, understand the circumstance, however, is a practice that is proven to be successful in the majority of the countries in the world today. This would ensure that the right amount of punishment is given to the crime, based on certain variations. Going back to the same example of killing someone, however, in this case, knowing that the assailant is under the influence of illegal drugs, may be sent to a rehabilitation facility first, then be given a lower sentence. Additionally, if this case did not go through this process, then one might receive a maximum penalty for merely doing self-defense. Going through a trial to understand different reasons why the crime happened, thus, is a necessary step.
In my opinion, while having a one-is-to-one offense to punishment combination provides desirable outcomes, understanding why the situation even occurred is a step that society cannot skip. All factors should be considered, before arriving and determining the appropriate penalty. 
 Crime
 and  
punishment
 is a discussion, far  
before
 I was even born. Others believe that society should have a specific  
penalty
 per violation committed, while others don't share the same belief,  
rather
, believing that all  
crimes
 should go through a trial to  
understand
 why the misbehavior  
was done
. In this essay, I will discuss both sides, and  
agree
 on the latter, that there should be a  
process
 to consider the situation  
before
 one can determine the strength of the stick to  
use
.
Having a menu to look at, matching misconduct to  
punishment
 will  
make
 the whole judging of a criminal  
process
  extremely
 simpler and faster, deterring criminals to even dare commit an offense. A possible future offender, seeing the  
penalty
 of misbehavior in full disclosure,  
indeed
, would instill fear in the individual, discouraging him or her to perpetrate a  
crime
. If killing someone,  
for instance
, would have an immediate  
punishment
 of the death  
penalty
, then  
very
 few would even  
think
 or plan of taking someone's life, as it would mean taking his  
own
 life in the  
process
  as well
.  
However
, if the act of killing may have  
different
  penalties
 based on varying factors, then someone may  
brilliantly
 devise a way or alibi to  
get
 a minimum sentence. Having unchanging  
punishments
 for a violation, as such, would  
undoubtedly
 discourage individuals to commit one,  
especially
 for severe penalties.
Having a trial to  
understand
 what happened,  
understand
 behavior,  
understand
 the circumstance,  
however
, is a practice that  
is proven
 to be successful in the majority of the countries in the world  
today
. This would ensure that the right amount of  
punishment
 is  
given
 to the  
crime
, based on certain variations. Going back to the same example of killing someone,  
however
,  
in this case
, knowing that the assailant is under the influence of illegal drugs, may be  
sent
 to a rehabilitation facility  
first
, then be  
given
 a lower sentence.  
Additionally
, if this case did not go through this  
process
, then one might receive a maximum  
penalty
 for  
merely
 doing self-defense. Going through a trial to  
understand
  different
 reasons why the  
crime
 happened,  
thus
, is a necessary step.
In my opinion, while having a one-is-to-one offense to  
punishment
 combination provides desirable outcomes, understanding why the situation even occurred is a step that society cannot skip. All factors should  
be considered
,  
before
 arriving and determining the appropriate  
penalty
.