punishments has been always fundamental part in any human legislation as it is the gurantee for the safety of the society and the protection shield for its members, however the issue of debate here is regarding the application of these chastisements whether they should be fixed and the whole type of misdeeds would be met by one penalty, or they ought to be personalized and every trespass would have a special retribution.
undoubtedly, application of one punishment for the whole type of crime is not so fair, as motives and conditions are always variable, for example, there is a big difference between who commit a homicide to get rid of embezzlement and that who aim robbery, however, it carries many advantages first, it is strong deterrent as people would knpow they would not be excused if they committed the crime, second, it is more applicable as the judge will not be vulnerable to hardly identified ambigious feelings that might change his decision, third, it is more accurate and not submitted to influential corruptive pressures.
on the other hand, elaboration of the laws to suit each commited fault is near to perfection, but it is inapplicable, and i think it is divine action which human authorities would never be able to correctly execute, alternatively, the justice will be liable to fancies, deception, and power centres.
in my opinion, i think the ideal approachable way is to set two limits for each crime type, the upper limit, and, the lower limit, where the court responsibility will be restricted to limited options to choose among according to each case circumstances, thus we will achieve equity and fair as much as we can.
undoubtedly, application of one punishment for the whole type of crime is not so fair, as motives and conditions are always variable, for example, there is a big difference between who commit a homicide to get rid of embezzlement and that who aim robbery, however, it carries many advantages first, it is strong deterrent as people would knpow they would not be excused if they committed the crime, second, it is more applicable as the judge will not be vulnerable to hardly identified ambigious feelings that might change his decision, third, it is more accurate and not submitted to influential corruptive pressures.
on the other hand, elaboration of the laws to suit each commited fault is near to perfection, but it is inapplicable, and i think it is divine action which human authorities would never be able to correctly execute, alternatively, the justice will be liable to fancies, deception, and power centres.
in my opinion, i think the ideal approachable way is to set two limits for each crime type, the upper limit, and, the lower limit, where the court responsibility will be restricted to limited options to choose among according to each case circumstances, thus we will achieve equity and fair as much as we can.
