Although there is no doubt that crime must be punished, it is important to consider which type of
penal system is most appropriate. While some believe that a system of fixed sentences should be
adopted, I support the view that punishments should be based on motives and circumstances.
Those who advocate implementing a judicial process of set punishments may argue that this would
make criminal trials more efficient. For example, once a jury has decided a particular defendant is
guilty of murder, the judge need only refer to the ‘punishment for murder’ to sentence that person
to life imprisonment. The benefit of this is that a huge amount of time would be saved in court, thus
leading to significant financial savings. As a result, more money could be spent on healthcare,
education and welfare.
However, I would argue that the above system is too rigid, and a process of ‘flexible’ punishments
is much fairer. The latter punishment system, which many countries use, leaves more room for
compassion toward offenders who have been blackmailed or manipulated. For instance, under this
system, if a thief is able to prove that he had been bullied into committing his crime, he should be
sentenced to less prison time than a thief who had been motivated by greed. If, instead, fixed
punishments were implemented, this sense of fairness and morality would be lost.
In conclusion, while a legal system of fixed punishments might be more cost-effective and efficient,
a procedure of assessing crimes based on circumstances and motives is more just, and justice, in
my view, is paramount.
Although there is no doubt that crime
must
be punished
, it is
important
to consider which type of
penal
system
is most appropriate. While
some
believe that a
system
of
fixed
sentences should
be
adopted
, I support the view that
punishments
should
be based
on motives and circumstances.
Those who advocate implementing a judicial process of set
punishments
may argue that this would
make
criminal trials more efficient.
For example
, once a jury has decided a particular defendant is
guilty of murder, the judge need
only
refer to the
‘punishment
for murder’ to sentence that person
to life imprisonment. The benefit of this is that a huge amount of time would
be saved
in court,
thus
leading to significant financial savings.
As a result
, more money could
be spent
on healthcare,
education and welfare.
However
, I would argue that the above
system
is too rigid, and a process of ‘flexible’ punishments
is much fairer. The latter
punishment
system
, which
many
countries
use
,
leaves
more room for
compassion toward offenders who have
been blackmailed
or manipulated.
For instance
, under this
system, if a thief is able to prove that he had
been bullied
into committing his crime, he should
be
sentenced
to less prison time than a thief who had
been motivated
by greed. If,
instead
,
fixed
punishments
were implemented
, this sense of fairness and morality would
be lost
.
In conclusion
, while a legal
system
of
fixed
punishments
might be more cost-effective and efficient,
a procedure of assessing crimes based on circumstances and motives is more
just
, and justice, in
my view, is paramount.