An argument put forward is that it is essential for each type of crime to receive invariable penalties. In contrast, a great deal of people assert that before determining the punishment, the situation and incentive of each case are obligatory to be carefully considered. From my point of view, I totally approve of the latter idea due to the following reasons.
To begin with, it is undeniable that taking relevant matters into consideration can guarantee the judgment to obtain justice. Each crime has its own hazardous intensity deriving from its motivation, execution, and action after committing a crime. For instance, if a criminal breaks the law because of a force majeure, it is supposed to be less dangerous, regardless of the seriousness of the issue, so the penalty may be reduced to be more humane. That's why investigating the crime can decide whether the court's decision is sufficient in fairness and preciseness or not.
On the other hand, although applying a fixed penalty has a tendency to simplify the procedure and process of judgment, it can result in an increase in the quantity and severity of crime. If an offender is aware of his punishment in advance, on carrying out the crime, he will incline to make it more cruel. This policy, as a consequence, has no effect in crime prevention but probably raises the crime rate.
In conclusion, I would reject the idea that a permanent penalty for each type of crime is crucial. The judge ought to examine the factors relating to each criminal process comprehensively and thoroughly to make the latest decision, which will ensure justice.
To begin with, it is undeniable that taking relevant matters into consideration can guarantee the judgment to obtain justice. Each crime has its own hazardous intensity deriving from its motivation, execution, and action after committing a crime. For instance, if a criminal breaks the law because of a force majeure, it is supposed to be less dangerous, regardless of the seriousness of the issue, so the penalty may be reduced to be more humane. That's why investigating the crime can decide whether the court's decision is sufficient in fairness and preciseness or not.
On the other hand, although applying a fixed penalty has a tendency to simplify the procedure and process of judgment, it can result in an increase in the quantity and severity of crime. If an offender is aware of his punishment in advance, on carrying out the crime, he will incline to make it more cruel. This policy, as a consequence, has no effect in crime prevention but probably raises the crime rate.
In conclusion, I would reject the idea that a permanent penalty for each type of crime is crucial. The judge ought to examine the factors relating to each criminal process comprehensively and thoroughly to make the latest decision, which will ensure justice.
