Some people believe that there should be fixed punishment for each 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 opinion.

Although

there is no doubt that crime should be punished, it is important to consider which type of the penal structure is most appropriate. While some believe that a system of fixed sentences should be adopted, I support the view that punishment should be based on motives and circumstances. Those who advocate implementing a judicial process of set punishments may argue that

this

would make criminal trials more efficiently.

For example

, once a jury has decided a particular defendant is guilty of murder, the judge need only refer to the 'punishment for murder' to the sentence that person to life imprisonment. The benefit of

this

is that a huge amount of time would be saved in court,

thus

leading to significant financial savings.

As a result

, more money could be spent on healthcare, education and welfare.

However

, I would argue that the above structure is too rigid, and a process of "flexible" punishments is much fairer. The latter system, which many countries use, leaves more room for compassion toward offenders which have been blackmailed or manipulated.

For instance

, under

this

system, if a thief is able to prove that he had been bullied into committing his crime, he should be sentenced to less prison time than a thief who had been motivated by greed. If,

instead

, fixed punishments were implemented,

this

sense of fairness and morality would be lost. In conclusion, while a legal structure of fixed punishments might be more cost-effective and efficient, a procedure of assessing crimes based on situations and motives is more important, and justice, in my view, is paramount.