The idea of having fixed penalties for crimes, such as life imprisonment for murder, is a contentious issue. In this essay, it will be proved that prescribed punishments are an unfair solution to the problem, using the example of murder.
On the one hand, if there is a penalty provided, it can guarantee a sense of closure and justice for victims’ families. After all, they will know that the criminal will be punished to the maximum extent of the law for the pain they have caused. It will also serve as a deterrent. For instance, if a person knows that committing a murder will always result in life imprisonment, they may think twice before doing so. Besides, it will also help to reduce court expenditures and the burden on judges and lawyers, and simplify the judicial process. Nowadays, great sums of money are spent on lawyers, keeping of the jury, guards, custody; if we inflict penalties automatically, it will save a lot of money for the government, which can be spent on more important issues, such as healthcare and education.
On the other hand, I believe that prescribed punishments can be too rigid and do not take into account the complexities of each individual case. For example, cases of self-defence or mental illnesses. A lot of murders are committed because of psychological problems a person faces. If we send all mentally ill people to prisons, this will causes bigger problems there, resulting in riots in jails among the healthy convicts. Additionally, such penalties can lead to overcrowding in prisons and do not address the root causes of the crime.
In conclusion, while fixed penalties may have some benefits, I think that they are not entirely a good idea. A more flexible approach, taking into account the unique circumstances of every case, would be more effective in promoting justice and rehabilitation.