One of the highly controversial issues today relates to whether the judiciary system should adopt fixed sentences for all crimes, or it should consider the circumstances and motivation behind each crime. In this essay, I am going to shed some light on this question from both points of view and extend my support to the latter opinion.
On one side of the argument there are people who argue that the benefits of adopting a fixed punishment structure for the crimes committed considerably outweigh its disadvantages. This is because fixed punishments will probably save a lot of time and money that could otherwise be directed for use in much needed services in other sectors of the community such as health and education. Another reason for believing this is that criminals will think twice before they commit any crime, as they would realize that punishment is going to be swift and strict. One good illustration of this is the declined rate of crimes in some countries that adopt a very strict and harsh punitive system.
On the other hand, it is also possible to make the opposing case. It is often argued that in many cases there are extenuating circumstances behind many of the crimes committed, especially the minor ones. People often have this opinion because in many countries and communities there may be strong factors influencing crime rates such as poverty and blackmailing. Therefore, it is crucial for judges to consider all the circumstances surrounding a defendant or a case to issue a just and fair verdict. For instance, a young woman convicted of public misconduct may have been forced into prostitution due to poverty. Thus, it goes without saying that their viewpoint is credible and realistic.
In my opinion, both arguments have their merits. On balance, however, I tend to believe that considering the circumstances behind each crime is paramount in order to reach a fair and just verdict in the courtroom.
One of the
highly
controversial issues
today
relates to whether the judiciary system should adopt
fixed
sentences for all
crimes
, or it should consider the circumstances and motivation behind each
crime
. In this essay, I am going to shed
some
light on this question from both points of view and extend my support to the latter opinion.
On one side of the argument there are
people
who argue that the benefits of adopting a
fixed
punishment structure for the
crimes
committed
considerably
outweigh its disadvantages. This is
because
fixed
punishments will
probably
save
a lot of
time and money that could
otherwise
be directed
for
use
in
much needed
services in other sectors of the community such as health and education. Another reason for believing this is that criminals will
think
twice
before
they commit any
crime
, as they would realize that punishment is going to be swift and strict. One
good
illustration of this is the declined rate of
crimes
in
some
countries that adopt a
very
strict and harsh punitive system.
On the other hand
, it is
also
possible to
make
the opposing case. It is
often
argued that in
many
cases there are extenuating circumstances behind
many
of the
crimes
committed,
especially
the minor ones.
People
often
have this opinion
because
in
many
countries and communities there may be strong factors influencing
crime
rates such as poverty and blackmailing.
Therefore
, it is crucial for judges to consider all the
circumstances surrounding
a defendant or a case to issue a
just
and
fair
verdict.
For instance
, a young woman convicted of public misconduct may have
been forced
into prostitution due to poverty.
Thus
, it goes without saying that their viewpoint is credible and realistic.
In my opinion, both arguments have their merits. On balance,
however
, I tend to believe that considering the circumstances behind each
crime
is paramount in order to reach a
fair
and
just
verdict in the courtroom.