Some people belive 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 .
Answer : Band 7.5
Fixing punishments for each type of crime has been a debatable issue . There are many arguments supporting both views , those for and those against fixed punishments .
On the one hand , fixed punishments will have a deterring effect on society . Individuals knowing that they will be subject to a certain punishment if they are convicted with a given crime , will reconsider committing this act in the first place .
This deterring effect also leads to social stability and security , through minimising the number of crimes committed .
If people knew they would be able to convince the court or the jury of a reason for having committed the crime they are accused of , penal decisions would be largely arbitrary . This would result into criminals getting away with their crimes and into a high level of injustice caused by the subjective approach of different courts .
On the other hand , taking the circumstances of a crime and its motivation into consideration is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity .
A person killing in self-defense can not be compared to a serial killer , moving from one victim to the next . In my opinion an intermediary position between both solutions is the perfect way to establish and ensure justice and equity .
There has to be fixed punishment for all crimes . However , criminal laws have to provide for a minimum and maximum for the punishment and the laws also have to foresee certain cases of exemptions .
