Although there is no doubt that crime must be punished, it is important to consider which type of penal system is most appropriate. While some believe that a system of fixed sentences should be adopted, I support the view that punishments should be based on motives and circumstances.
Those who advocate implementing a judicial process of set punishments may argue that this would make criminal trials more efficient. For example, once a jury has decided a particular defendant is guilty of murder, the judge need only refer to the ‘punishment for murder’ to sentence that person to life imprisonment. The benefit of this is that a huge amount of time would be saved in court, thus leading to significant financial savings. As a result, more money could be spent on healthcare, education and welfare.
However, I would argue that the above system is too rigid, and a process of ‘flexible’ punishments is much fairer. The latter punishment system, which many countries use, leaves more room for compassion toward offenders who have been blackmailed or manipulated. For instance, under this system, if a thief is able to prove that he had been bullied into committing his crime, he should be sentenced to less prison time than a thief who had been motivated by greed. If, instead, fixed punishments were implemented, this sense of fairness and morality would be lost.
In conclusion, while a legal system of fixed punishments might be more cost-effective and efficient, a procedure of assessing crimes based on circumstances and motives is more just, and justice, in my view, is paramount.