All around the world, there is a difference of opinion regarding the imposition of a certain punishment for every individual crime as being the most effective approach. However, the imposition of such a law has its positive as well as its negative effects.
Starting with the positive effects, the imposition of a certain punishment for a crime would reduce the time it takes a judge to provide a decision on a given case, as they no longer would need to tailor a punishment for every individual case that they preside over. This would in turn allow the judges to provide relief to many more individuals since each case now takes less time.
Furthermore, due to the repercussion now being known, it may also act as a deterrent, as now the people know the punishment they would have to bear if they are found in offence of the law.
However, having a fixed sentence for each crime would only work in theory, as it would not be able to be implemented in practice, as each case has a distinct set of facts which are specific to that case. As a result, holistically applying a sentence before understanding the facts may result in a situation where the punishment given might either be too much or too little depending on the situation. For instance, in cases involving theft, if the crime of theft had a fixed punishment, an individual who had stolen a bar of gold would be receiving the same punishment as person who had stolen a packet of crisps.
To conclude, the debate regarding which side has a more sound argument would be never ending, as both make a sound point. One argues for a more efficient law that has certain effects, whereas on the other hand the argument against raises concerns regarding the morality in treatment of every offence as equal, both correct in their own rational.