Severity of penalties is a highly discussed topic since centuries. It is thought by many people that criminals done same actions should be punished equally without taking into consideration their motives or other relative circumstances. However, it is suggested by the others that the motive behind each individual carrying out wrongful action, their situation and condition should be considered when giving punishment. In my opinion, even though fixed penalties may seem to have contributed to the encouragement of equality, regarding each individual's own condition when punishing the unlawful behaviour provides more just environment.
Supporters of fixed penalties argue that in order to promote equality among wrongdoers there is a need to charge each of them by the same punishment. The judges might act arbitrarly and sometimes defectively when making a decision. This happens when rulers give much more importance to their feelings than the existing fact. Moreover, there is a limited knowledge regarding the problem encountered. In other words, the court is merely aware of the information which has shown them at the courtroom. This may lead to false judgement and therefore inaccurate penalties. Furthermore, the court decisions may be appealed by the other party and as a result higher court reverses that judgement. Take, for example, a conducted study suggests that 38 percent of the judgments reversed last year in Russia.
On the other hand, the consept of equality and the justice are not always overlap, the latter is a far wider and complex term. Every criminal has different motivation and purpose of conducting a crime. Therefore, treating them equally would contribute to the disruption of our morality and understanding of equality by culminating in unfairness. For example, a child who stole some milk from the supermarket and the person who steals some perfume or clothes should be punished distictively, even the acts have the same name as theft from the perspective of law. Otherwise, the society would be effected poorly.
In conclusion, despite the possibility of the court's emotional ruling and thus necessity to prohibit those unfair conclusions, I believe that flexible and variable decisions better serve for justice and the existing moral values in a society.
Severity of
penalties
is a
highly
discussed topic since centuries. It is
thought
by
many
people
that criminals done same actions should
be punished
equally
without taking into consideration their motives or
other
relative circumstances.
However
, it
is suggested
by the others that the motive behind each individual carrying out wrongful action, their situation and condition should
be considered
when giving punishment. In my opinion,
even though
fixed
penalties
may seem to have contributed to the encouragement of
equality
, regarding each individual's
own
condition when punishing the unlawful
behaviour
provides more
just
environment.
Supporters of
fixed
penalties
argue that in order to promote
equality
among wrongdoers there is a need to charge each of them by the same punishment. The judges might act
arbitrarly
and
sometimes
defectively
when making a decision. This happens when rulers give much more importance to their feelings than the existing fact.
Moreover
, there is
a limited knowledge
regarding the problem encountered. In
other
words, the court is
merely
aware of the information which has shown them at the courtroom. This may lead to false judgement and
therefore
inaccurate
penalties
.
Furthermore
, the court decisions may
be appealed
by the
other
party and
as a result
higher court reverses that judgement. Take,
for example
, a conducted study suggests that 38 percent of the
judgments
reversed last year in Russia.
On the
other
hand, the
consept
of
equality
and the justice are not always overlap, the latter is a far wider and complex term. Every criminal has
different
motivation and purpose of conducting a crime.
Therefore
, treating them
equally
would contribute to the disruption of our morality and understanding of
equality
by culminating in unfairness.
For example
, a child who stole
some
milk from the supermarket and the person who steals
some
perfume or clothes should
be punished
distictively
, even the acts have the same name as theft from the perspective of law.
Otherwise
,
the society would
be effected
poorly
.
In conclusion
, despite the possibility of the court's emotional ruling and
thus
necessity to prohibit those unfair conclusions, I believe that flexible and variable decisions better serve for justice and the existing moral values in a society.