The criminality is one of the crucial problems faced by people recently. Not only is it difficult to define, but it is also hard to determine how to deal with the sanction properly. Some people consider that the best way which should be taken is the legally fixed punishment for each of crimes in order to create the strict law. Others state that before deciding what compatible conviction is, the reasonable background such as motivation and environment of individuals should be considered. This essay is going to discuss both of views.
On the one hand, determining the fixed punishments for every level of the criminal action is one way to make fair regulation. It is conducted in order that the doer of criminality gets the compatible reward which is suitable with their action. For example, when people intentionally murder someone, they are ensured to kill too. As the consequence, the death sentence is regarded as the most proper punishment. In another case, people committing the small crime such as thieving goods or stealing foods will not get the heavy sanction as well.
On the other hand, to avoid the unfair punishment, people should give the particular attention the reason background why someone commits the crime. In addition, before deciding the type of sanctions which are given, people have to view the motivation or intention, so people cannot dispose the punishment directly. For instance, a woman, becoming the victim of raping, must kill someone because she tries to defend herself. Based on her motivation, absolutely it cannot be accused that she commits the serious crime, so it is unfair if she will get the death sentence as her punishment.
To sum up, even though it is important to know the background why people commit the crimes, it does not help to uphold the assertive rule for solving the criminality. Personally, in my perspective, making the fixed punishment as the legal regulation is the wise ways to decide the punishment for people conducting the crimes. Therefore, the basic excuse is whatever the bad actions impair the other people is can be called as the criminal activity as well.
On the one hand, determining the fixed punishments for every level of the criminal action is one way to make fair regulation. It is conducted in order that the doer of criminality gets the compatible reward which is suitable with their action. For example, when people intentionally murder someone, they are ensured to kill too. As the consequence, the death sentence is regarded as the most proper punishment. In another case, people committing the small crime such as thieving goods or stealing foods will not get the heavy sanction as well.
On the other hand, to avoid the unfair punishment, people should give the particular attention the reason background why someone commits the crime. In addition, before deciding the type of sanctions which are given, people have to view the motivation or intention, so people cannot dispose the punishment directly. For instance, a woman, becoming the victim of raping, must kill someone because she tries to defend herself. Based on her motivation, absolutely it cannot be accused that she commits the serious crime, so it is unfair if she will get the death sentence as her punishment.
To sum up, even though it is important to know the background why people commit the crimes, it does not help to uphold the assertive rule for solving the criminality. Personally, in my perspective, making the fixed punishment as the legal regulation is the wise ways to decide the punishment for people conducting the crimes. Therefore, the basic excuse is whatever the bad actions impair the other people is can be called as the criminal activity as well.