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.

Whenever the topic of crime arises, there are those who hold the view that fixed punishments are the right option, while others hold the view that

this

solution is not the fairest approach.

This

essay will discuss the nerites of both views and put forward a personal opinion. Fairness and costs are to main reasons which support fixed

punishment

.

In other words

, having fixed

punishment

would ensure that people of all backgrounds would receive a fair trial. A classic example of

this

is to be found in the USA where black young people seem to be treated differently to white people.

Additionally

, many are of the opinion that fixed punishments are more cost-effective. To exemplify

this

, they maintain that having fixed punishments would cost the courts and taxpayers a lot of money.

Although

these reasons seem valid, the arguments on the other side would seem to be stronger.

For example

,

a

Remove the article

apply

show examples

murder in self-defence is not the same thing as

a

Remove the article

apply

show examples

premeditated murder. So, the

punishment

for

such

crimes should be different. After all, the situations in both are extremely different. What’s more, age is

also

a pivotal factor, meaning that a young person might not be aware of the consequences of their actions where would be expected that an adult should.

This

would explain why many offenders go to prison at a youthful age. All things considered,

although

both arguments have validity it would seem to me that fixed

punishment

for serious crimes is unjust. After all, the progressive countries in the world take

this

approach.