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.

One of the highly controversial issues today relates to whether to use standardised penalties or flexible ones.

This

essay examines the above question from both points of view and

then

I will give my own perspective on the matter. On one side of the argument, there are people who argue that the benefits of fixed punishments considerably outweigh its disadvantages. The main reason for believing

this

is that it is easy to manage. One good illustration of

this

is parking tickets. If every one of these had to go to court and be ruled upon by a judge and jury

this

would be very complex, expensive, and wastes a lot of people’s time. It is

also

possible to say that

this

system is fairer because every person is treated the same regardless of race or gender.

On the other hand

, it is

also

possible to make the opposing case. It is often argued that in fact, it is better to consider the situation and motivation of an offence. People often have

this

opinion because sometimes people are forced to commit a crime

such

as a self-defence murder. Clearly,

this

should be considered in sentencing for the crime. A

second

point is that the reason for a crime should be taken into account. A particularly good example here is that someone who steals food to feed their family shouldn’t be punished as someone who steals money because of his profit. In conclusion, both arguments have their merits. On balance,

however

, I tend to believe that it is better to decide the penalty on a case-by-case basis, as getting the right decision is more important than the justice system saving money.