It is often argued that each law violation act should get a specific type of penalty, while others would say that the conditions and stimulus of the wrongdoing are vital when sentencing. This essay will argue that despite there being some convenience in having certain type of retribution per misconduct, there are more cases when the motive and surrounding details of the felony can play a significant role.
On the one hand, many feel that because there is specific type of crimes that take place repeatedly, even within a matter of hours, having a fixed punishment for them can save up jurists’ time. As a result, it can contribute to the prioritization of more serious criminal cases that require a lot of investigation and analysis. For example, England and Wales police reported that robbery, which is considered as an unlawful act, happens at least 200 times a day and having a particular disciplining methods can be handy by saving up a lot of time.
On the other hand, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the reason and situational context behind a committed crime can be essential when sentencing. Moreover, these factors can both mitigate and aggravate the level of the punishment based on an individual case. For instance, if a person commits theft to buy medicine for a sick child, the court may view the motive as mitigating and impose a lighter sentence. In contrast, if the same crime is committed out of greed or with violence, the retribution is likely to be severe.
In conclusion, pre-determined penalty for each type of crimes can be beneficial when saving time for judges and prioritizing cases that necessitate step by step operating, but the background and intention of an offender is more crucial when deciding on the punishment, even for minor crimes.