crime occur constantly, and judges bear the great responsibility of ensuring justice for both law-abiding citizens and criminals. fixed punishments show people the punishment they can expect from certain actions. However, it may put the fairness for criminals at stake, and deprive criminals of the chance at rehabilitation. This essay will discuss whether there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime.
Mandatory sentencing shows people what results they can expect from certain serious actions. This means that it can act as a warning to both citizens and potential criminals, which might reduce the possibility of crime, facilitating the maintenance of a stable and safe society.
However, fixed punishments can act in cost of fairness for perpetrators. Crimes are sometimes committed to prevent suffering, which is different in nature from crimes committed deliberately. For instance, murder committed for survival is ethically disparate from murdering intentionally. Therefore, it would not be just to give each actions the same punishments.
In addition, applying fixed penalties can cause law offenders to move further on the path of crime. Unfairness caused by uniform sentencing can foster a feeling of hatred toward society, resulting in their want for revenge, which can cause them to commit more serious crimes. Moreover, certain groups of people, especially young people, may commit crimes due to lack of personal judgement. In this case, receiving individualized sentencing can be more effective compared to mandatory sentencing, since they can get the chance to reflect on themselves and change their behavior, and become a law-abiding citizen, instead of causing them to consider themselves as real criminals and act as perpetrators.
In conclusion, mandatory sentencing may lead to injustice since the same punishment is applied to the same crime, regardless of circumstances. Therefore, the reason for crime commitment ought to be taken into account for both the well-being of criminals and community.