There is a controversial issue whether court should take into consideration circumstances of crimes. Some people believe that punishment should be fixed while other argue that is not fair and crimes could be committed by different reasons. In this essay I will discuss both views and give my opinion.
First and foremost, the fixed punishments have their merits, it makes trials less expensive and accelerate them. Without the need to consider cases in details, the court can make a decision faster, in several says instead of months. Usual
trial lasts several months with dozens of court sessions, which all cost significant amount of money, while criminal should wait in remand center where conditions are often harsher than in jails and prisons. For example, in USA average court has 15 court sessions lasted almost a year and all this cost over half of million dollars.
However, it is important to remember that people commit crimes under other circumstances and with different motivation. Sometimes they just fight for their lives, protecting themselves from violence and trying to feed themselves or their family. For example, in Russia half of women in prisons are convicted of their mate’s murder, 90% of these cases are self-defense against domestic violence, all of them have milder sentences than other inmates. Another case is shoplifting, people can steal because they are hungry.
In conclusion, despite of merits of fixed crimes, I believe that court should take into consideration all circumstances, even if it makes trial more expensive and longer. Even criminals prefer to wait more than to receive a longer sentence. Maybe in the future, AI could arrive at a decision in less time, nevertheless its decisions would be well weighted and without prejudice.