Some argue that a pre-defined punishment should be given based on the crime. However, others argue that things such as reasons behind a crime and what drove the culprit to commit a crime should all be taken into account before punishing an individual. In my opinion, I believe that all of the facts and figures should be considered when deciding a life altering decision.
Those who are in favour of pre-defined punishments claims that this will be cost effective and efficient. In other words, since the punishment is fixed all that a jury needs to know if the culprit is guilty or not. Once this is decided the judge could easily sentence the punishment based on the law making the whole judicial system fast and efficient whereas, previously it would have taken years to conclude a case costing an enormous amount of taxpayer's money. Furthermore, since the punishments are fixed an offender would exactly know the severity of the punishment, hence, pre-determined crimes would decline. For instance, a bank robber on parole breaking into another financial institute would exactly know their consequences when caught.
Others who oppose pre-defined punishment claims that there are always more than one side to a story. Humans primarily make decisions and take actions based on emotions and feelings. Hence, it is vital for a judge and for the jury to hear and see through a person's reasoning before making a judgement call. In addition, even though a crime is made by an individual there can be compelling reasons for the jury to free a person from its crime based on situation, compassion and empathy. For example, a destitute stealing a loaf of a bread to feed his poverty-stricken family can be granted a free pass based on the three above stated reasons.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that pre-defined punishments will not aid an individual to correct themselves instead, it will make people lose hope and belief in the judicial system which is ultimately the last place to get justice.
Some
argue that a
pre-defined
punishment
should be
given
based on the
crime
.
However
, others argue that things such as reasons behind a
crime
and what drove the culprit to commit a
crime
should all
be taken
into account
before
punishing an individual. In my opinion, I believe that
all of the
facts and figures should
be considered
when deciding a life altering decision.
Those who are in
favour
of
pre-defined
punishments
claims that this will
be cost
effective and efficient.
In other words
, since the
punishment
is
fixed
all that a jury needs to know if the culprit is guilty or not. Once this
is decided
the judge could
easily
sentence the
punishment
based on the law making the whole judicial system
fast
and efficient whereas, previously it would have taken years
to conclude
a case costing an enormous amount of taxpayer's money.
Furthermore
, since the
punishments
are
fixed
an offender would exactly know the severity of the
punishment
,
hence
,
pre-determined
crimes
would decline.
For instance
, a bank robber on parole breaking into another financial institute would exactly know their consequences when caught.
Others who oppose
pre-defined
punishment
claims that there are always more than one side to a story. Humans
primarily
make
decisions and take actions based on emotions and feelings.
Hence
, it is vital for a judge and for the jury to hear and
see
through a person's reasoning
before
making a judgement call.
In addition
,
even though
a
crime
is made
by an individual there can be compelling reasons for the jury to free a person from its
crime
based on situation, compassion and empathy.
For example
, a destitute stealing a loaf of a bread to feed his poverty-stricken family can
be granted
a free pass based on the three above stated reasons.
In conclusion
, I
strongly
believe that
pre-defined
punishments
will not aid an individual to correct themselves
instead
, it will
make
people
lose hope and belief in the judicial system which is
ultimately
the last place to
get
justice.