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.
People have different view about whether it is good case to take fixed punishment for criminals or it is worthwhile to judge them individually. Although there are convincing points in favor of fixed punishment, I personally believe that judging each crime individually is more fair.
Opponents of this idea think that criminals do need to be punished seriously. They also claim that a person who commit a crime must learn that unlawfull actions have consequences. For this reason, taking fixed punishment against each crime is obvious example of fair justice system .This kind of punishment acts as a deterrent to make people think carefully before breaking the law. They know what measures expect them before committing a crime and this can stop people to commit a crime to some extent. Last year in Turkey,many people were given a serious punishment for rioting,and hopefully this punishment will deter them from similar behavior in future.
Supporters of this argument think that judging each crime rates individually is the best approach to fair justice system.For example,when minor criminals are sentenced ,they have to be differentiated from offenders who had committed serious crimes.Taking same strict measures against them can be source of damaging human morality.Besides all,main reasons for crime have to also be taken into account when judging offenders. For instance, stealing money to food family in comparison with stealing money for making a profit
To sum up, it seems to me that fixed punishment should be avoided in a society in order to provide community with higher standard of justice system.
Task II Ryan,pease grade this
Re: Task II Ryan,pease grade this
You addressed both sides of the argument well. Good job!Muxtar wrote: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.
People have different views about whether it is a good idea to have fixed punishment for criminals or if it is worthwhile to judge them individually. Although there are convincing points in favor of fixed punishment, I personally believe that judging each crime individually is more fair.
Opponents of this idea think that criminals need to be punished seriously. They also claim that a person who commits a crime must learn that unlawful actions have consequences. For this reason, setting a fixed punishment against each crime is an obvious example of a fair justice system.This kind of punishment acts as a deterrent to make people think carefully before breaking the law. They know what measures they will face if caught before committing a crime and this can stop people from committing crime to some extent. Last year in Turkey, many people were given a serious punishment for rioting, and hopefully this punishment will deter them from similar behavior in the future.
Supporters of this argument think that judging each crime individually is the best approach for a fair justice system. For example, when minor criminals are sentenced, they have to be treated differently than offenders who have committed serious crimes. Taking the same strict measures against them can be a source of damaging human morality. Besides this, the main reasons for crime have to also be taken into account when judging offenders. For instance, stealing money to feed a family in comparison with stealing money for making a profit.
To sum up, it seems to me that fixed punishment should be avoided by society in order to provide the community with higher standards of justice.