There is a claim that fixed punishment should have been in all crimes. While I admit that it has some advantages, I strongly believe that it may cause more unfairness.
On the one hand, punishment will be objective not depend on the judge’s opinion. While it depend on the judge’s opinion, it might be biased and can arise concerns. However, when it comes to fixed punishment, all offenders will be punished equally under the law and this can increase people’s trust towards the legal system. Additionally, it prevents any corruption with the legal system affecting the punishment given. When two similar crimes commit, and treat them in different approaches. It is likely happen that richer man can easily bypass the rules.
On the other hand, not all crimes are committed under the same circumstances. While it is important to maintain fairness, it is also true that the context in which crime committed and personal can influence the severity of the punishment. Moreover, not all people who commit a crime are violent and aggressive by nature. A person who plans a violent crime with clear intentions should not receive the same punishment as someone who acts in self defence. It is also worth mentioning that an individual who has never committed a crime should not receive the same punishment as a repeat offender with a long prison record.
In conclusion, the way appealing fixed punishment for all crimes has some benefits, yet making decisions on taking into account circumstances is more significant.