Hi, I am preparing for the IELTS and practicing some essays, here is one of them.
Topic: 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.
There are many discussions about how to treat a person who committed a crime. Whether there should be a universal meter or the punishment should be adjusted according to individual circumstances.
It is said that universal punishment according to fixed table could decrease the possibility of corruption. There were many cases, where subject was paroled only because there was evidence of being influenced by drugs or alcohol. Without these conditions the subject would have been imprisoned for several years. Hand in hand goes the idea of democracy and so that everybody who committed the same crime should be punished in the same way.
However, every person is an individual also its case is an individual one. Special circumstances should be considered when deciding on the punishment. These circumstances include why the subject decided to commit the crime, the way it was done and not to forget if the subject regrets doing that. For instance, the brutality of the crime should also be taken into account when punishing mass murderers, rapers, etc.
In my opinion, there should be a table of fixed punishments when deciding about not so severe cases. If the case is a serious one (murder, mass murder, rape, terrorism,...) all the conditions and circumstances should be taken into account. This consideration would influence the final punishment.
In conclusion, everything has its pros and cons and crime is not an exception. On one hand there is a possibility of decreasing corruption or same meter for everyone, on the other are special circumstances under which the crime was committed.
______________________
Thanks in advance, Filip.
