It is often true that crime offenders must be punished. While many people believe that fixed punishment should be considered, I suppose that the punishment should be based mainly on the motivation and circumstances that caused it.
Those who are supporting is affected sentence may argue that this could improve the effectiveness of criminal trials. For instance, once a jury who decides that the criminal is guilty of murder crime will directly apply life imprisonment. This kind of punishment might deter the offenders from breaking the law as they know the exact sentence that they will face in case of arrest. This could be beneficial in reducing time consumption in courts which might lead to saving a significant amount of money. This financial budget could be spent on improving the educational health system as well as the welfare of citizens.
However, the previously mentioned punishment could be a deterrent to many offenses, and many people could be incorporated into such crimes unintentionally. Therefore, the Jury committee should consider the circumstances and conditions for crime commitment. For example, some youngsters might be involved in some crimes, especially cyber crimes without knowing how to avoid this and also without intention. This could be due to the absence of parental guidance and monitoring. In this case, if the fixed punishment were implemented, these teenagers could be imprisoned, and the sense of fairness and morality would be lost.
By way of conclusion, while many persons argue that fixed punishment might be time and cost-effective, the assessment of offenses based on motivation and circumstances, in my opinion, is an asset.