Numerous people believe that it is more efficient to have a fixed chastisement for all felonies. I believe that this can be both beneficial and detrimental.
To start with, by following this paradigm, some eventualities which can be considered as favourable can rise, such as reduction of crime rates in the society due to fear of reproach; diminishment of trials number in courtrooms because of practicability and efficiency that the rule of a single penalty can engender, thus decreasing considerably the auditions; and effective dealings with crimes because of reduction of interferences between the perpetrator and the jail assigned for the crime, given that irrespective of the felony, all criminals will be prosecuted equally. In addition to this, it is worth mentioning the social tranquility that can be incited by the impacts of the rule and the awareness of the prosecution because everyone will know, beforehand, the fate of the criminal. For instance, if a robber barged into my house, I would know what awaits him.
What is more, despite the effectiveness of the rule, it can also ignite undesirable outcomes for certain professionals, such as decrement of court revenue due to decreased number of court sessions, and demand reduction of judicial officials. Moreover, criminals can avail this to undertake the most abhorrent felonies because they are aware of what to expect in case they get caught. Another major factor worth pointing out is the fact that the condemnation can be, to some extent, unfair. For instance, one can unknowingly break the traffic rules and end up prosecuted heavily because of the fixed chastisement.
To sum up, having a single form of punishment can be both constructive and harmful to the society. Moreover, it can compel judges to undertake prosecutions which are morally not fair.