Fixed Vs Unfixed Penalty
Fixed Vs unfixed penalty
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.
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 cannot 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 have to be fixed punishments for all crimes. However, criminal laws have to provide for a minimum and a maximum for the punishment and the laws also have to foresee certain cases of exemptions. An example for setting minimum and maximum penalties is Competition Law where a person being held liable of a crime under this law will be convicted to pay a fine, according to the harm caused by the violation and the profit gained by the violator through
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.
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 cannot 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 have to be fixed punishments for all crimes. However, criminal laws have to provide for a minimum and a maximum for the punishment and the laws also have to foresee certain cases of exemptions. An example for setting minimum and maximum penalties is Competition Law where a person being held liable of a crime under this law will be convicted to pay a fine, according to the harm caused by the violation and the profit gained by the violator through