There is ongoing debate about the punishments of the crime. Many suggest the standardisation of the punishment should be prevailed as it would reduce the judicial bias. On the other hand, some counters that each crime should be studied and assessed on multiple aspect, as justice should be the prime motive, not just the law. I strongly believe that assessing one’s crime over the same legal framework won’t be fair since the distinction of crimes should be understood before penalising an entity.
The standardisation of punishment would definitely help and bring ease to the system as it helps uniform laws and legal structure for everyone, as suggested by the first group. Judicial bias can be severely reduced as the uniform and standard laws will help to main equality within all the citizens. For example, all the robbers will be sentenced and penalised the same. As the standards laws be adopted, the rate of pending cases would be reduced significantly. This framework will set the precedent that everyone is equal in the eyes of law.
However, the legal system has set its foundation on, not only the uniformity end but also the severity too. The other group argues that severity matters. Cases should be studied and analysed individually, before deciding one’s penalty. Once studied, the severity of the crime could be determined. Questions such as “is the convict found guilty for the first time, or is the one a multiple offender? Is the one a minor?” Law should be above all, but if the details are not the same, how can one be penalised the same?
In conclusion, both the groups are right as they both focus towards the upliftment and betterment of the society. One suggests uniformity, the other focuses on the depth. While setting a precedent for the mass, the depth within the framework should be preferred.