The masses are of the opinion that it is better to have a permanent penalty for all offences. While the offences that are committed deliberately or out of ignorance attract a long term penalty, so also, it has merits and demerits.
On the one hand, having a permanent penalty on all illegal acts can make individuals aware of the consequences of their action and curb criminal acts. For example, the awareness that anybody who commits a murder shall also die by hanging can reduce unlawful behaviour in the community. Furthermore, it reduces bias among the citizens. The public believe that punishment should be served equally whether poor or rich. In addition, it reduces cost on the part of government as they know what will be spent on a crime as there have been provision for it since it is a fixed punishment, thereby helping the government to be more concentrated on other areas.
On the other hand, there are numerous deficiencies in having a stiff punishment for misdeeds among the people. One of them is that criminals may not be afraid to commit a particular offence since they are aware of the consequences and may want to put law into their hands. For instance, a criminal that is on a revenge mission knows that it might lead to death. Likewise, giving the same punishment to a terrorist and a young offender and putting them in the same prison may harden the young offender’s mind and expose him to more danger.
To conclude, as fixed punishment can help reduce crime rate by preventing potential criminals, so also, can it cause social disputes among the public and negative influence it has on the offenders’ psychological well-being.