Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. v.1
Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. v. 1
Whether having fixed punishments for different kinds of crime has been a long-standing debate. Consequently, there are plenty of arguments supporting both for and against viewpoint. In the further paragraphs more detail will be brought out.
One of the most obvious advantages of fixing the punishment is the lower cost, since there will be not need to hold a long lasting trial, and therefore the money spent on the court members can be less. The time consumed will also decrease dramatically, and this leads to another upside, that is, efficiency. Besides, deterring crime will be much more effective, because people will know how harsh the punishments are and may possibly reconsider before they act.
However, to some people, fixed penalties may imply a more injustice system. The difference between killing people out of defence and killing for no reason, such as serial killers, is relatively large. Therefore the motivation of committing a crime actually matters, and is supposed to be taken into account. If all the actions are treated in the same way, and those who break the laws share the same punishment, people may start to lose their faith in the justice system, and this is a result I believe that most people wanted to avoid.
In conclusion, the disadvantages of fixing penalties outweigh the advantages. Although the process is way faster, the justice, on the other hand is not properly served. And the most important thing is to let people believe the system, so that the harmony of the society can be achieved.
Whether having
fixed
punishments
for
different
kinds of crime has been a long-standing debate.
Consequently
, there are
plenty
of arguments supporting both for and against viewpoint. In the
further
paragraphs more detail will
be brought
out.
One of the most obvious advantages of fixing the
punishment
is the lower cost, since there will be not
need
to hold a
long lasting
trial, and
therefore
the money spent on the court members can be less. The time consumed will
also
decrease
dramatically
, and this leads to another upside,
that is
, efficiency.
Besides
, deterring crime will be much more effective,
because
people
will know how harsh the
punishments
are and may
possibly
reconsider
before
they act.
However
, to
some
people
,
fixed
penalties may imply a more injustice system. The difference between killing
people
out of
defence
and killing for no reason, such as serial killers, is
relatively
large.
Therefore
the motivation of committing a crime actually matters, and
is supposed
to
be taken
into account. If all the actions
are treated
in the same way
, and those who break the laws share the same
punishment
,
people
may
start
to lose their faith in the justice system, and this is a result I believe that most
people
wanted to avoid.
In conclusion
, the disadvantages of fixing penalties outweigh the advantages. Although the process is way faster, the justice,
on the other hand
is not
properly
served. And the most
important
thing is to
let
people
believe the system,
so
that the harmony of the society can
be achieved
.
8Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
8Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
8Mistakes