There is a difference of opinions on whether measures of punishment should differentiate according to individual cases. While the judicial efficiency that a strict crime-punishment correspondence can bring is considerable, in court it is fairer to consider the specific circumstances and the motivations for committing a crime.
To begin
with, the message sent by matching each crime with a fixed penalty is clear, informing people of the foreseeable results of anti-social behaviours and relieving the judicial departments from endless case reviews and investigations. Linking Words
Nevertheless
, Linking Words
such
practice has fatal flaws, assuming that all wrong-doers have bad intentions and creating an image of perfect victims, Linking Words
this
approach is unable to bring justice to rightful defence. Linking Words
For example
, in Linking Words
such
a system, someone who accidentally killed the assaulter in a wrestle will be regarded as guilty and Linking Words
thus
suffer punishment, which is not only unfair but Linking Words
also
unmerciful.
Linking Words
On the contrary
, other people deem it reasonable to take into account the individualities when deciding on the cases, an argument with which I personally agree. The Linking Words
first
reason is that it solves the problem of the former method. Linking Words
Besides
, even for the same crime of the same level of seriousness, differentiating points on their motivations can make big differences. Linking Words
For instance
, beating someone up because he or she assaulted a lady is not the same as submitting someone to physical violence in order to bully them
To sum up, fixing crimes with punishing measures can be quick and cost-saving, but to bring true justice to society, it is better to fully consider all aspects of individual cases before making decisions.Linking Words
Pennnnnny