As long as the justice existed, there are always been misjudging with criminal being undercharged, or uncharged, while honnest people were taken to prison unfairly. Justice though has always tried to be as accurate as possible and unbiased when pronuncing a sentence. Related to
this
, it is claimed that misconduct should be judged only based on the laws broken,
although
some say that each criminal should have a personnal jugment. In my opinion,
this
debate cannot properly be settled, as it will lead to both advantages and inconvenients. In
this
essay, I will go through both views.
Breaking the law can be made in multiple ways, and for a wide range of reasons (good or bad). A fixed punishment would not reflect
this
diversity. Au contraire, it is easy to imagine a situation where a infraction is committed for a "respectable" purpose.
For instance
, consider a large family with only one member who is the breadwinner, and surviving rather than living. Suppose
then
that
this
person is sacked and, say due to its age, is not able to found a job anytime soon. The family might eventually be tempted to stole food or clothes. Even though it would be a wrongdoing, it would be one of the best solution. Indeed, when thinking about the other possible outcomes their would be: asking for help from the community or the government, which, if possible, may lead to the loss of children by their parents likely causing them disorder; letting the children die one after another, but there is no need to tell why
this
is wrong. When considering each choices, it can be found that committing a crime was
therefore
the best solution and, for
this
reason, should not be judged in a similar manner as a regular burglar.
Consequently
, a personal judgment would be more suited for
such
cases.
However
, as nowadays punishments are always chosen considering a comprehensive review of the criminal's life, it is widely used by lawyer to reduce their client's sentence. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see people acting like crazy to have a shorter journey in prison, or lawyer refering how difficult was the childhood of their client for the same reason. In that sense, a fixed punishment would avoid
such
techniques to avoid getting properly judged and would gain time for judgment and any related professional working in the field: judge, lawyer, jury, etc.
In conclusion, implementing
such
a justice is controversial, with pros and cons in each view. While personal judgment allows for the understanding of the whole process that had lead to the commitment of the crime, a fixed sentence will necessarily avoid criminal and their laywer to take avantage of the situation, by finding excuse for their bad behavior. I think,
however
, that personal punishment avoid punishing innocent people, which is a critical feature.