SOME PEOPLE FEEL THAT THERE SHOUD BE A FIXED PUNISHMENT FOR EACH TYPE OF CRIME. OTHERS FOT THAT THE CIRUMSTANCES OF AN OFFENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT WHEN DECIDING ON A PUNISHMENT. DISCUSS BOTHE SIDES AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION.

Crime is a pervasive issue in many societies.The conventional trial process is quite lengthy and has a huge burden on the state's resources. For

this

reason, many people hold the view that fixed punishment is the solution, while others believe that intention behind the offence should be considered prior to punishment. I will examine both views and explain why I think petty crimes should have fixed punishments,

however

, heinous ones should be dealt with individually.

To begin

with, despite the lengthy justice system and strain on the state's resources, heinous offences should, always, be trialled case by case. Serious offences by a serial criminal and by a common man cannot be punished

similarly

. Homicide,

for instance

, committed in self-defence should have different implications from the murder by a serial killer. The former is committed to saving oneself while the latter is committed to the sake of pleasure.

Therefore

, the intention of the crime should be mandatory prior to awarding a sentence.

On the other hand

, petty violations should have fixed sentences to save time and resources. A fixed and instant punishment will not only reduce recidivism but may

also

deter amateurs. Take punishments for minor misdemeanours as an example. Regardless of the amount attained by any pickpocket after the offence, they should be incarcerated for a specific amount of time. In order to avoid hectic legal procedures and strain on government machinery, all petty ill-doings: picking a pocket, theft of food, shoplifting and so on, should be penalised by fixed punishments. In conclusion, In my opinion, a holistic approach ought to be taken for all horrific major crimes while minor crimes should be handled in a more pragmatic process.