There is contentious debate for the type of punishment for different crimes. Opponents argue that fixed punishment should be decided ahead for each criminal activities while proponents claim of taking circumstances into consideration when deciding penalty. However, I partially agree with former view.
One segment of society believes that higher authorities should decide charges ahead for each crime. This approach would facilitate the cops in treating criminals equally on basis of severity of crime. For example, In Pakistan, offenders who committed murder or sexual harassment will be sentenced to death regardless of the reason for the murder. This is a right approach to some extent as some crimes are unforgiveable and entail strict punishments. For example, offenders who takes life of innocent souls and harassing people sexually should be treated with strict penalties. This move will not only satisfy the victims but also create fear in the people, thus refraining them to commit such crimes.
Conversely, all crime should not be assigned with pre-decided punishments. To delve deeper into the notion, for some crimes, such as burglary, and robbery, reasons must be inquired before imposing the charges on the offenders. For example, some criminals are under the influence of alcohol and drug abuse when performing robbery. Hence, fixed punishments will put them behind the bars before treating the cause of the act. There is likely probability that the offenders will commit same crime repetitively. However, the pragmatic approach would be inquiring the cause and taken circumstances in consideration before deciding the punishment. In this case, the offenders might require rehabilitation rather than being behind the bars.
To conclude, for some severe crimes such as murders and sexually harassments, fixed punishments should be assigned to the offenders. However, less severe offences should require interrogation first followed by imposing the punishments.