You are on page 1of 3

There is always a debate on whether the same punishment should be applied to the same crime, or the punishment should

depend on the situation at the time when crimes are committed. While the former seems a good system, I agree with the latter. That is, the offenders situation should be considered in the court trial. At the same time, the laws must be enforced to ensure fair justice. Supporters of fixed punishments claim that it is essential for justice to apply the laws so that offenders who commit the same kind of crime are punished equally. This is because the law should apply to everyone equally. No matter who you are (either a president or an ordinary person), where you are from or what colour of skin you have, all offenders should be treated the same. By taking the hard line, it will be a deterrent to people considering committing crimes. However, some argue that there should be some room for leniency. That is, the factors such as the circumstance, or motivation or the consequence caused to the society, have to be taken into account during the trial. The reasons they give are that it is unfair for those people who commit the crime without intention, or cause less damage to the society, or in a particular situation, to receive the same punishment as others in a totally different situation. For example, a mother who steals food in a supermarket to feed her starving child should not get same punishment as another woman who does it for her drug addiction. Similarly, a first time offender should not be treated the same as a repeat offender. Personally, I prefer the way in which the punishment is decided on a case-bycase basis.

Nobody denies, crime is one of the problems in every society, however, each nation is suffering from this. Goverments think about solving this problem and take some measures for punishments for crime. Crime is the process which people do it for various kinds of purposes. People kill each other for money, bad languages and so on. Policies can cause different types of crime also which not only adults but also children killed in such terrors. Therefore taking measurement for punishment for crime is urgent for stoping this bad events. Choosing punishment for crime is difficult process which judges must take in consideration why it happened or how. Because you can't judge a person who killed someone for protect himself and a terrorist the same. There must be justice for punishment for crime, certainly punishments must differ from each other because of quantity of killed person, how he was killed and other various reasons. In spite of, punishments must be heavy because it can play necessary role in settling crime problem.

Though if govenments apply fixed punishments for each type of crime it will be good for minimizing amount of crimes and another hand if you killed one person you are criminal and you didn't vary from others because it didn't depend on amount, someone's life was stoped by you. Thus if you killed one person you could kill more than one. In conclusion, people must obey their consciences for staying far from crimes and they must think that every person is someone's child, relative, friend or dear. Criminals must take it in consideration that their punishment may be light in this world, despite that their punishments will be very heavy in hell.

In the present age, the issue of crimes is increasingly disturbing. But in the meantime, whether taking into account the criminal circumstances and the motivation has sparked much debate. Some people assert that there should be fixed penalties for each type of crime, while many others argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should invariably be regarded when deciding on the punishment. Personally, I am in favor of the latter view. Convincing arguments can be made that it is AN indispensable basis that regarding the criminal surroundings and the motivation when /determining/DELIBERATING/DECIDING/ on the penalty. To start with, when a person is in a dangerous circumstance, he or she might exert some /reasonless/UNREASONABLE/IRRATIONAL/SENSELESS/ and impulsive behaviors. Therefore, for these crimes, which are passive operations, THERE should be MORE lenient punishments. Moreover, if a criminal makes some behaviors breaking the law BY/IN protecting others or self-protection, this person also is THE same as a victim. For instance, if a female hurts or kills a guy who is raping her, at the same time she also is suffering from the trauma. Consequently, this behavior of self-protection ought to be regarded as innocence. Admittedly, law enforcement agencies execute stringent punishments for each type of crime(.) That IN ITSELF is A powerful guarantee for peoples daily lives and social stability. The reason FOR this is that severe penalties as a deterrent to crimes can /plunge/DECIMATE/REDUCE/ the crime rate. Obviously, due to fearing punishments, people have to think over the consequence of what they are going to engage in. Even so, for those law-abiding citizens WHO are confronted with rampant offenders who disregard laws, they fail to effectively protect themselves or other people. For instance, people are restricted to deter a crime for they are worried about violating the law THEMSELVES.

In summary, I would concede that stringent punishments can prevent the criminal tendency. Despite that, taking into account the crime circumstances and the motivation is essential to punishments, to large extent. Overall, I am convinced that the justified law can more effectively maintain the social stability and substantially

Generally it is claimed that punishments should be specific for every single crime. Hovewer, other people think that during the decision of the punishment the benches should take into account when someone committed a crime. I believe that the context of the crime must be taken into account.. Firstly, we have to remember that all men are equal before the law and someone, whoever he is, have to judge for his felony. The sentences are different depending on the crimes. For example, a man who burgled a house goes to jail for three years. Obviously, the judgment will be different for a man who killed someone and his imprisonment will be longer than the first. Because the law has to guarantee our safety and that this man do not commit this crime again. (It is the law's obligation to guarantee our safety; thus the law must make sure that this man does) On the other hand, people argue that benches should consider the motivation when a crime is committed.For example, imaginine a woman who is being attacked. She hits the aggressor with a blunt instrument during the scuffle. The assailant die on site.The benches should take into account the circumstances of this crime. The woman is not a criminal and her intention in that moment was to defend herself. In conclusion, I believe that both of these views should be considered by benches during the verdict. The law is equal for everyone and the judgment should correspond to the crime with exceptions for particular circumstances.