fixing punishments for each type of crime has been a debateable issue. there are many arguments supporting both views, those for and those against fixed punishments.
on the one hand, fixed punishments will have a deterring effect on society, individuals given crime, will reconsider committing this act in the first place.
this dettering effect also leads to social stability and security, through minimising the number of crimes committed.
if people knew they would be ablt to convince the court or the jury of a reason for having committed the crime they are accused of, penal decisions would be largely arbitrary. this would result into criminals getting away with their crimes and into a high level of injustice caused by the subjective approach of different courts.
on the other hand, taking the circumstances of a crime and its motivation into condieration is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity.
A person killing in self defense cannot be compare to a serial killer, moving from one civtim to the next. in my opinion an intermediary position between both solutions is the perfect way to establish and endure justice and equity.
there have to be fixed punishments for all crimes. however, criminal laws have to provide for a minimum and maximum for the punishment and the laws also have to foresee certain cases of exemptions.
and example for setting minimum and maximum penalties is competition law where a person being held liable of a crime under this law will be convicted to pay a fine, according to the harm caused by the violation and the profit gained by the violator through committing the crime.
As for the exemptions, in some countries the law exempts thiefs stealing food during a period of femine taking into consideration the distress and hunger.
Also, a person killing in self defense will be exempted from punishment.
fixing
punishments
for each type of
crime
has been a
debateable
issue.
there
are
many
arguments supporting both views, those for and those against
fixed
punishments.
on
the one hand,
fixed
punishments
will have a deterring effect on society, individuals
given
crime
, will reconsider committing this act in the
first
place.
this
dettering
effect
also
leads to social stability and security, through
minimising
the number of
crimes
committed.
if
people
knew they would be
ablt
to convince the court or the jury of a reason for having committed the
crime
they
are accused
of, penal decisions would be
largely
arbitrary.
this
would result into criminals getting away with their
crimes
and into a high level of injustice caused by the subjective approach of
different
courts.
on
the other hand, taking the circumstances of a
crime
and its motivation into
condieration
is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity.
A person killing in
self defense
cannot be
compare
to a serial killer, moving from one
civtim
to the
next
.
in
my opinion an intermediary position between both solutions is the perfect way to establish and endure justice and equity.
there
have to
be
fixed
punishments
for all
crimes
.
however
, criminal
laws
have to
provide for a minimum and maximum for the
punishment
and the
laws
also
have to
foresee certain cases of exemptions.
and
example for setting minimum and maximum penalties is competition
law
where a person
being held
liable of a
crime
under this
law
will
be convicted
to pay a fine, according to the harm caused by the violation and the profit gained by the violator through committing the crime.
As for the exemptions, in
some
countries the
law
exempts
thiefs
stealing food during a period of
femine
taking into consideration the distress and hunger.
Also
, a person killing in
self defense
will
be exempted
from
punishment
.