Some people believe that each type of crime should be met with specific punishment. Other people disagree and feel that various factors, such as an individual's situation or motivation for committing a crime, must always be considered when determining the penalty.
What is your opinion? Discuss both views.
Crime and Punishment Essay Answer
It is one thing to determine if a crime has been committed based on evidence, but another thing to establish how and why the crime was committed. For this reason, in most democratic countries, the judicial system exists based on a jury and a judge. The jury is responsible for determining if the evidence clearly indicates that a particular crime was committed and the judge is responsible for passing an appropriate sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case in question.
Although some people think fixed sentences for each crime would be better, irrespective of the reason or manner in which each crime was committed, such a notion oversimplifies what is, normally, a complex situation. No two people are the same, and no two sets of circumstances are equal. They may be similar in certain aspects, but each event is unique. Treating each case as the same would be unjust and lead to many people being unduly punished or let off too lightly.
The main problem with set punishments is that it completely nulifies the judge's ability to show leniency in cases where it may be warranted. Often, there are extenuating circumstances that play a role in why someone committed a crime, and these need to be considered when deciding on a sentence. The judge would not have the power to show leniency if they felt it was warranted. If there was simply a mandatory punishment for each type of crime, it could lead to unfair outcomes.
Additionally, set punishments can often be excessively harsh and do not reflect the severity of the crime. For example, someone who commits a relatively minor crime may receive the same punishment as someone who commits a much more serious offense. This can often be unjust and lead to people being unfairly punished for crimes they did not commit.
It is far more just and humane to treat each case on an individual basis based on the actual events and circumstances involved. This is preferable to simply basing a sentence on the end result without considering what may have led to the crime or the reason behind it. In addition, fixed harsh punishment is often seen as a way of deterring crime. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it actually does this. In fact, it is more likely that alternatives such as rehabilitation and education would be more effective in reducing crime.
For example, it is easy to determine if a driver breaks the speed limit on a road. There are measuring devices and cameras which can be employed to give evidence. However, although driving at 5mph over the limit is technically a crime, it is by no means as serious an offense as driving at 50mph over the limit, or driving recklessly at speed, or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In the latter case, the potential consequences of any accident that ensues and danger to third parties are far greater and serious, and rightly deserve a harsher sentence than for the driver who was slightly over the limit.
Circumstances and motivation must be taken into account when it comes to passing sentences for criminal acts. The severity of a sentence should be matched with not only the nature of the crime but also the underlying reason and manner in which it was committed.
- - Should there be fixed punishments?
- - Should each case be judged on its own circumstances?
- - Are there any crimes which should have more severe punishment?