Heated debate are held over the punishments for a designated crime. Some believe that there should be a fixed standard to decide the punishment, where as the opponents argue that the result should consider other factors like the reasons of commiting the crime. Both will be discussed and give the point.
For the former stance calling for the same standardized procedure to sentence the same punishment given the same crime, its approvals hold the belief that although those crimes are committed under various situations, the final results are identical. With the same outcomes, the criminals should have the same setenced punishment. For example, if the exact amounts of money were to be taken, no matter what kind of motivation they whould held, they should undertake the same duties and would be sentenced in the same way.
Nevertheless, it simply overlook the greater roles that other things may play in the criminals to take illegal actions as other people insist and just put more emphasis on the consequences over others. The latter opponents take other influential factors more into account, highlighting that the conditions that have led people behave illegally can also influence the punishments they will receive.
Moreover, laws are always regarded as the redline of moral principles shared by society, that is, many common behaviours are restricted by moral regulations first. If those joint limitations cannot stop them from ocurring, then they are converted into crime. When we are facing some more usual divergence, we tend to use those invisible standard to make different punishments, even when it comes to the same outcomes. Therefore, when deciding the extent of punishments, it is acceptable to take many reasonable factors into account.
In all, while making decisions about the extent of punishments for the same crime, we have to consider the potential impact of outside variables and make a flexible but reasonable decision.