The topic of having fixed punishments for certain crimes has always been controversial. Some people believe that such penalties provide important principles in the field of justice and give the affected party assurance in the fairness of punishment. Others think this system does not allow for the recognition of the nuances of each case. This essay will argue that prescribed penalties for criminal acts are a good idea.
One of the main reasons why this idea has many supporters is that this system prevents corrupt trials ans and judges’ biased opinions from intervening with the final sentence. We are all aware of bribery and corruption in court and that with the help of money, criminals manage to escape. In addition to that, consistency can assure the damaged party of a strict level of sentence for the offender and give them the feeling that justice has been served.
However, it is undeniable that fixed penalties can have profoundly negative and irreversible consequences. Cases of false accusations and wrong convictions still exist. Many people are sentenced to life imprisonment, or even worse, to a death penalty. Not long ago, there was a famous case in the USA where a man, wrongly convicted to long-term imprisonment, was set free after 24 years spent in jail. Moreover, there are always incidents involving domestic abuse, where murders, for instance, can be committed for self-defense purposes. With no consideration of the circumstances of each case, the right decision cannot be made.
In conclusion, while the idea of fixed punishments brings assurance in the idea of justice, it is impossible to make fair decisions without a thorough investigation and consideration of the circumstances in which the offence occurred and the proper work of the court. Therefore, I strongly believe that every case should get the proper attention, and every criminal should be convicted according to the evidence presented in court.