It is sometimes thought that all crimes can be effectively deterred by having a fixed punishment. A fixed punishment can prevent people from committing all violent crimes and save more time in court, but there are also drawbacks to be taken into consideration.
Firstly, one evident benefit of having a fixed punishment is that it is a more effective deterrent when people know the exact consequences for the crime they commit. To put it another way, if a person knows for sure that he will incarcerate for long sentences in prison because he offended or harassed one of the public; he will think twice before committing an offence toward people. Secondly, having a fixed sanction would be advantageous because it means that being able to afford a good defence attorney will not affect the punishment given, which leads to greater equality among delinquents. For example, if there is no fixed penalty for each felony, an offender who killed someone would need a smart defence attorney to shun death penalty. This will result in spending a lot of money and waste more time on trial. Thirdly, to prevent any corruption within the legal system affecting the punishment given, the fixed punishment is considered the best solution to face this problem. This will prevent criminals from slipping through loopholes in the law as the fixed punishment option will make sure to keep them off the streets, and society will be effectively protected as an indirect result.
On the other hand, one possible problem is that not all crimes are committed under the same circumstances. In other words, a person who plans a violent offence should not receive the same punishment as someone who acts in self-defence. To illustrate, an individual who plans to kill someone should be pleaded guilty and applied the death penalty to him. But, if a person killed someone mistakenly because he acts in self-defence should not be punished because he was protecting his life. Another negative aspect is that personal circumstances, such as extreme poverty or mental health problems, ought to be taken into account. For instance, a woman in Egypt was suffering from extreme mental health issues, and one day, she set the fire to her neighbor’s home. As a result of her illness, the judge did not imprison her as she was not conscious when she did her crime. Furthermore, a person who has never committed a crime should not receive the same punishment as a repeat offender with a long record in prison.
In conclusion, while having a fixed punishment can benefit both individuals and society, it can also lead to bias sanctions and unfair trials among criminals.
It is
sometimes
thought
that all
crimes
can be
effectively
deterred by
having
a
fixed
punishment
. A
fixed
punishment
can
prevent
people
from committing all violent
crimes
and save more time in court,
but
there are
also
drawbacks to
be taken
into consideration.
Firstly
, one evident benefit of
having
a
fixed
punishment
is that it is a more effective deterrent when
people
know the exact consequences for the
crime
they commit. To put it another way, if a
person
knows for sure that he will incarcerate for long sentences in prison
because
he offended or harassed one of the public; he will
think
twice
before
committing an
offence
toward
people
.
Secondly
,
having
a
fixed
sanction would be advantageous
because
it means that being able to afford a
good
defence
attorney will not affect the
punishment
given
, which leads to greater equality among delinquents.
For example
, if there is no
fixed
penalty for each felony, an offender
who
killed
someone
would need a smart
defence
attorney to shun death penalty. This will result in spending
a lot of
money and waste more time on trial.
Thirdly
, to
prevent
any corruption within the legal system affecting the
punishment
given
, the
fixed
punishment
is considered
the best solution to face this problem. This will
prevent
criminals from slipping through loopholes in the law as the
fixed
punishment
option will
make
sure to
keep
them off the streets, and society will be
effectively
protected as an indirect result.
On the other hand
, one possible problem is that not all
crimes
are committed
under the same circumstances.
In other words
, a
person
who
plans a violent
offence
should not receive the same
punishment
as
someone
who
acts in
self-defence
. To illustrate, an individual
who
plans to kill
someone
should
be pleaded
guilty and applied the death penalty to him.
But
, if a
person
killed
someone
mistakenly
because
he acts in
self-defence
should not
be punished
because
he was protecting his life. Another
negative
aspect is that personal circumstances, such as extreme poverty or mental health problems, ought to
be taken
into account.
For instance
, a woman in Egypt was suffering from extreme mental health issues, and one day, she set the fire to her neighbor’s home.
As a result
of her illness, the judge did not imprison her as she was not conscious when she did her
crime
.
Furthermore
, a
person
who
has never committed a
crime
should not receive the same
punishment
as a repeat offender with a long record in prison.
In conclusion
, while
having
a
fixed
punishment
can benefit both individuals and society, it can
also
lead to bias sanctions and unfair trials among criminals.