Topic: Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
There are two opposite opinions on the punishment determination. Some people suggest that fixed punishments should be imposed to each type of crime, whereas others argue that punishment should fit the crime. I am the proponent of the latter.
First of all, fixed punishment is feasible on the premise that every criminal case is brought to trial and the details of the case are fully discussed by the prosecutor and the attorney, so that the defendant who is found guilty usually deserves his or her accusation. Since the offense has been proved, imposing the identical punishments to the same type of offense is reasonable. Additionally, there is criticism against the discretionary power of the judge in respect of punishment determination because of the subjectivity involved.
However, it is inappropriate to sentence a criminal without careful consideration of the seriousness of the crime and the motivation of the criminal. Although the trial can diminish false accusation, an unfair punishment can also deteriorate legal justice. The unfair punishment occurs where there is a disregard of the severity of the offense and the intention of the offender. Suppose two robberies involving the same dollar amount of money occur, one of the robbers commits the crime for the first time while the other one is a repeater. It is unfair if both of them are imposed imprisonments for the same amount of years as apparently the repeater has more negative effects on the society.
Conclusively, determining punishments for a crime is challenging. In order to achieve legal justice, the judge should consider whether aggravated or mitigating factors exist.
Pls grade: Writing task 2 Crime and punishment
Re: Pls grade: Writing task 2 Crime and punishment
SaraZh wrote:Topic: Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
There are two opposing opinions on punishment determination. Some people suggest that fixed punishments should be imposed for each type of crime, whereas others argue that the punishment should fit the crime. I am a proponent of the latter.
First of all, fixed punishment is feasible on the premise that every criminal case is brought to trial and the details of the case are fully discussed by the prosecutor and the attorney, to ensure that the defendant who is found guilty deserves his or her punishment. Since the offense has been proved, imposing the identical punishment to the same type of offense is reasonable. Additionally, there is criticism against the discretionary power of the judge in respect of punishment determination because of the subjectivity involved.(<-- Adding an example here would be good, because it helps to explain your point.)
However, it is inappropriate to sentence a criminal without careful consideration of the seriousness of the crime and the motivation of the criminal. Although a trial should determine whether the accusation is justified or false, an unfair punishment can also be detrimental to the public's view of legal justice. Unfair punishment occurs when there is disregard for the severity of the offense and the intention of the offender. Suppose two robberies involving the same dollar amount of money occur. One of the robbers is committing crime for the first time while the other one is a repeat offender. It is unfair if both of them receive imprisonment for the same amount of time, as the repeat offender has had a larger, negative effect on society.
In conclusion, determining appropriate punishment for a crime is challenging. In order to achieve legal justice, the judge should consider whether aggravated or mitigating factors exist.