please evaluate my task 2
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:54 pm
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.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Adjudging the punishment for a crime has always been a contentious issue. Some people support the system in which a specific punishment is given for a particular type of crime while others believe that every act of crime should be dealt with differently in the light of the circumstances leading to the crime. I will analyse both these views before reaching a conclusion.
To begin with, having a fixed punishment system is logical primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the devastation and outcome of any act is the same, irrespective of the circumstance. For instance, the damage caused by vandalism would be the same whether it is carried out as a retribution for personal vendetta or as a part of some fanatical religious campaign. Since the outcome is unchanged by the contributing factors, nor should the punishment. Secondly, a fixed punishment system would be fast and efficient. Considering the huge backlog of cases pending in courts, this method would be a great asset in improving our judicial system. So, handing out pre-determined punishments does have substantive benefits.
On the contrary, not every crime is the same since its nature is modified by the contributing factors. Giving a pre-arranged judgement for every crime of a particular type may lead to unnecessarily harsh punishments in an appreciable number of cases. We can take theft and murder as examples. No one would agree that theft by a penurious individual struggling to meet his end meet should be as severely punished as that carried out by an organised mafia group. Similarly, unprovoked murder carried out in cold blood surely deserves far harsher punishment than the murder committed in self defence. Thus, it is only sagacious that the circumstances of the perpetrator be taken into account.
In conclusion, while both the systems of punishment have their own advantages, I am inclined to a system that provides case specific verdict which considers all the predisposing factors leading to the crime, since it would prevent the scenario of disproportionately harsh punishments.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Adjudging the punishment for a crime has always been a contentious issue. Some people support the system in which a specific punishment is given for a particular type of crime while others believe that every act of crime should be dealt with differently in the light of the circumstances leading to the crime. I will analyse both these views before reaching a conclusion.
To begin with, having a fixed punishment system is logical primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the devastation and outcome of any act is the same, irrespective of the circumstance. For instance, the damage caused by vandalism would be the same whether it is carried out as a retribution for personal vendetta or as a part of some fanatical religious campaign. Since the outcome is unchanged by the contributing factors, nor should the punishment. Secondly, a fixed punishment system would be fast and efficient. Considering the huge backlog of cases pending in courts, this method would be a great asset in improving our judicial system. So, handing out pre-determined punishments does have substantive benefits.
On the contrary, not every crime is the same since its nature is modified by the contributing factors. Giving a pre-arranged judgement for every crime of a particular type may lead to unnecessarily harsh punishments in an appreciable number of cases. We can take theft and murder as examples. No one would agree that theft by a penurious individual struggling to meet his end meet should be as severely punished as that carried out by an organised mafia group. Similarly, unprovoked murder carried out in cold blood surely deserves far harsher punishment than the murder committed in self defence. Thus, it is only sagacious that the circumstances of the perpetrator be taken into account.
In conclusion, while both the systems of punishment have their own advantages, I am inclined to a system that provides case specific verdict which considers all the predisposing factors leading to the crime, since it would prevent the scenario of disproportionately harsh punishments.