It is frequently considered by some that it is more viable to have a non-flexible penalty for each crime. The distinct benefits of this lie in preventing major crimes and lessening expenses on maintenance of court officials, whilst possibility of charging innocent people because of unfair sentences as well as to release delinquents illegally through corruption. The drawbacks of applying fixed punishment far outweigh the strengths.
On the on hand, one of the primary weaknesses of this is the possibility of charging accidentally people who are not responsible for crimes due to the fact that this person can be slandered by somnolent who has undesirable intentions or is the real criminal. In other words, unfair sentences can destroy someone's life, and it will lead to adverse consequences such as depriving an innocent person of his family or committing suicide. Moreover, there is the possibility of releasing guilty individual dishonestly because of such crimes as corruption and bribery, and it means that real offender will be free due to his wealth or prosperous acquaintance, also it is undisputed that this sort of actions illustrates a double criminal activity.
On the other hand, one clear advantage of having fixed penalty is that it can become a deterrent of major offences, which can be arduous for innocent citizens, and also it aids to calm the ardour of many criminals. In addition, non-flexible punishment can reduce expenditure on a court case, and it leads to saving of considerable amount of money, also insignificant misleads will be punished immediately and without any noises that is convenient for street officials.
To conclude, the obviation of major crimes and declining expenses on a court employee is the foremost advantages of applying permanent penalty for all crimes, but the major drawbacks include charging people who are not guilty and releasing the criminal illegally due to the corruption. The flaws of this much outweigh the benefits.
It is
frequently
considered by
some
that it is more viable to have a non-flexible penalty for each
crime
. The distinct benefits of this lie in preventing
major
crimes
and lessening expenses on maintenance of court officials, whilst possibility of charging innocent
people
because
of unfair sentences
as well
as to release delinquents
illegally
through corruption. The drawbacks of applying
fixed
punishment far outweigh the strengths.
On the on hand, one of the primary weaknesses of this is the possibility of charging
accidentally
people
who are not responsible for
crimes
due to the fact that this person can
be slandered
by somnolent who has undesirable intentions or is the real
criminal
.
In other words
, unfair sentences can
destroy
someone's life, and it will lead to adverse consequences such as depriving an innocent person of his family or committing suicide.
Moreover
, there is the possibility of releasing guilty individual
dishonestly
because
of such
crimes
as corruption and bribery, and it means that real offender will be free due to his wealth or prosperous acquaintance,
also
it
is undisputed
that this sort of actions illustrates a double
criminal
activity.
On the other hand
, one
clear
advantage of having
fixed
penalty is that it can become a deterrent of
major
offences
, which can be arduous for innocent citizens, and
also
it aids to calm the
ardour
of
many
criminals
.
In addition
, non-flexible punishment can
reduce
expenditure on a court case, and it leads to saving of considerable amount of money,
also
insignificant misleads will
be punished
immediately and without any noises
that is
convenient for street officials.
To conclude
, the obviation of
major
crimes
and declining expenses on a court employee is the foremost advantages of applying permanent penalty for all
crimes
,
but
the
major
drawbacks include charging
people
who are not guilty and releasing the
criminal
illegally
due to the corruption. The flaws of this much outweigh the benefits.