Punishment of Crime
There is a controversial issue between supporters of fixed punishments imposed for each type of crime and those who consider the circumstances and motivation of the individual offence. I think it is more productive to base on the situation and incentive than enforce fixed penalties to lay down punishments.
On the one hand, proponents of the idea of fixed punishments for each manner of prisoner argue that these punishments are easily understandable and predictable. The reason for this is that it could help to deter individuals from committing crimes because they know exactly what the consequences will be if they are caught. As a result, everyone could be aware of the punishments for each crime when these prevent criminals thoroughly.
On the other hand, opponents of fixed punishments dispute that they fail to account for each offender's specific occurrences. For instance, someone who steals food to feed their family should not necessarily receive the same penalties as someone who steals for financial gain. Additionally, fixed punishments could lead to an over-reliance on imprisonment, which is often expensive and could be detrimental to the offender's rehabilitation.
From my perspective, fixed punishments should not be the only factor, even though they help provide an obvious deterrent for potential offenders. It is vital to account for the unique circumstances, such as the criminal's motivation and history. Hence, authorities could be easy to ensure justice and prevent heinous crimes.
In conclusion, while fixed punishments effectively deter crime, the specific circumstances of offenders could be tailored to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. I believe that if individualized sentences are enforced reasonably without being too lenient or inconsistent, each human in society will not commit themselves to immoral behaviour.
