There has always been a dispute among people about crime and punishment. Some individuals think that the trials will proceed quicker if the same punishments were applied for the same crime. On the flipside, there are people who stand for courts to take into consideration circumstances under which crime was committed. Although both points of view have advantages and disadvantages, I believe that it is essential to weigh context before the verdict.
To begin with, proponents of equal penalty for equal misdeeds believe that everyone is equal before the law and no excuses can be considered as mitigating circumstances. To add, the whole justice system would be more efficient. There are many offenders on the loose because lots of cases require individual approach and as a result more time is required so an offender can commit another crime. Consequently, if the judge was equitable to everyone, more trials would proceed. However, this method is not fair to people. Such things as the extent of the damage or the severity of the consequences are not considered at all. The same crime can affect society differently so punishment should reflect the actual damage.
In contrast, there are people who are convinced that circumstances and intentions should be looked at more carefully before making a verdict. Such individuals believe that it is crucial to analyze what led to an incident and what motivated people to commit a crime. For example, if the person was misled by the organized gang in order to commit crime, he would face the same charges as the other members. What differs the person from others is that he has extenuating circumstances such as deception under which he or she broke the law. Nevertheless, the biggest drawback of this approach is that it makes the justice system more complicated. The same crime can be investigated differently according to motives and reasons so more time is spent on making decisions. A more standardised method would ease the legal process.
In my opinion, it is necessary to balance when it comes to punishment. For instance first-time offenders can get milder sentences due to the hope they will rehabilitate after the imprisonment by adjusting their behavior to social norms. In addition, repeat offenders may get harsher punishments because they are menaces to society’s safety. Moreover, justice for victims is another point for applying different penalties for the same crimes. If the crime has a detrimental effect on physical and psychological health, stronger punishment can be justified.
All things considered, it seems to me that both points of view have the right to exist. It is important for trials to be more efficient and for judges to be more fair. Though two approaches have their strong sides and drawbacks, there is no doubt that taking individual circumstances into account is essential for ensuring fair trials.