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.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
In this modern age, the criminal rates have extremely increased in some countries. For this reason, some people think that fixed punishments for each type of crime should be applied as it can give people a fear effect. However, I personally believe that the motivation and conditions should be cogitated when it comes to deciding punishment since it must be distinguished for each offender.
I would argue that the fixed punishment might be an effective as a shock therapy to prevent more people from committing a criminal action. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is a law for a suspect who kills someone will be punished by death penalty. In turn, this country has a lower rate of crime than other Arabic countries. It is thus clear that the fixed punishment has made people to be fear to commit a crime.
Conversely, the motivation and conditions of people committing crimes should be taken into account by the judges due to its differences. For instance, Aminah, a grandmother who lives only with her husband in Karanganyar village, Indonesia, had stolen some cassavas from a farming land belongs to a well-known company because she did not have money for meals. As such, the judges punished her previously for a year being jailed to only three months. It is clear that the reason behind someone against a law is not always be the same, which means that it must be an essential consideration for the judges.
As far as I'm concerned, the punishment for each kind of criminal should not be generalised because it seems unfair. Two suspects might be have the similar murdering cases, but it could be different when it comes to the motivation and condition behind it. The former has planned to kill another person for a long time as a revenge action, but the latter one commit a murder on behalf of self defence. It shows that both suspects definitely have a different reason which is why the punishment also needs to be proper.
In brief, it is evident that although the fixed punishment could affect people to rethink for doing crime, I personally argue that it will be more fair if the judges could consider the motivation and condition of people doing that. Where possible, when deciding a punishment for a criminal, the judges could ask public opinions in order to get a balance view.
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.
In this modern age, the criminal rates have extremely increased in some countries. For this reason, some people think that fixed punishments for each type of crime should be applied as it can give people a fear effect. However, I personally believe that the motivation and conditions should be cogitated when it comes to deciding punishment since it must be distinguished for each offender.
I would argue that the fixed punishment might be an effective as a shock therapy to prevent more people from committing a criminal action. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is a law for a suspect who kills someone will be punished by death penalty. In turn, this country has a lower rate of crime than other Arabic countries. It is thus clear that the fixed punishment has made people to be fear to commit a crime.
Conversely, the motivation and conditions of people committing crimes should be taken into account by the judges due to its differences. For instance, Aminah, a grandmother who lives only with her husband in Karanganyar village, Indonesia, had stolen some cassavas from a farming land belongs to a well-known company because she did not have money for meals. As such, the judges punished her previously for a year being jailed to only three months. It is clear that the reason behind someone against a law is not always be the same, which means that it must be an essential consideration for the judges.
As far as I'm concerned, the punishment for each kind of criminal should not be generalised because it seems unfair. Two suspects might be have the similar murdering cases, but it could be different when it comes to the motivation and condition behind it. The former has planned to kill another person for a long time as a revenge action, but the latter one commit a murder on behalf of self defence. It shows that both suspects definitely have a different reason which is why the punishment also needs to be proper.
In brief, it is evident that although the fixed punishment could affect people to rethink for doing crime, I personally argue that it will be more fair if the judges could consider the motivation and condition of people doing that. Where possible, when deciding a punishment for a criminal, the judges could ask public opinions in order to get a balance view.