Many people believe that having a fixed punishment for all crimes is more efficient. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a fixed punishment.

Recently, a lot of people are of the view that common sentence for all the crimes is one stop solution to ensure efficiency.

Although

there is a benefit of simplification of law enforcement, it

also

has a disadvantage of generalization of an illegal activity irrespective of their severity.

This

disquisition will delve deeper on both the points and support the argument with relevant examples. As mentioned earlier, simplifying a law governing a punishment is the biggest advantage as it will reduce the complexity of making a judgement and improving transparency. To elaborate, a judge is aware of the sentence for any offence and his role is limited to confirming whether a person is actually guilty.

Moreover

, an offender

also

has a clarity on the possible outcome for the offence.

For example

, India has recently amended its Motorist Act where it has assigned fixed penalty for traffic rule violation.

Consequently

, the principal drawback of the proposal is the overall generalization of crime where severity of an action is not taken into consideration. The judicial outcome varies depending on the magnitude of one’s action, reserving the stringent ones for crimes involving somebody’s life and lenient ones for petty issue

such

as theft. Comparing them equally and announcing a single judgement seems unreasonable and unethical.

For instance

, one cannot compare a rapist or a murderer with a burglar, as they vary highly with severity grade demanding a personalized solution. To conclude, it is a good idea to have a fixed outcome for all the wrongdoing as it will decrease the complexity of the judicial system with subsequent increase in clarity but over generalization will

also

inadvertently result in to unethical and unreasonable judgements.