It is indisputable that people must be punished for the crimes they perpetrated. Some assume that each case should have a fixed sentence, while others hold the view that each defendant’s background and particular circumstances are to be considered. Both sides of this argument will be analysed before a reasoned conclusion is drawn.
Over the last decade, many countries have overhauled their judicial system, specifically the punishment regulations, which tend to have minimal descriptions for a particular type of crime. In Japan, for instance, the majority of homicide cases have one punishment, regardless of the degree of murder or mitigating circumstances, as all of them are deemed crimes against humanity and nature. This approach to justice simplifies criminal proceedings and deters potential culprits from committing crime.
According to others, a verdict should depend on the background and circumstances of each crime. For example, those who may murder in case of self-defense do not have to be jailed with serial killers and maniacs who have psychological disorders and have been recognised as psychopaths. Justice will not prevail in this situation because of human survival instincts and the rule of law has considered it from time immemorial. Self-defense is one of the cases when circumstances should be investigated when assigning punishment, not to mention other factors such as state of mind and the criminal’s atrocity.
In conclusion, it is evident that both views have strong grounds for their existence and validity. Nonetheless, from my perspective, people have a right to a fair trial and punishment, therefore, it is better to investigate the details of each crime and assign punishment according to the severity of the crime.