Fixed Punishments - Sample

Criminal penalties have been, and continue to be, subjected to personal circumstances, especially in our modern judicial system, leading many to believe these punishments are insufficient as a deterrent against crimes. However, this essay will argue that human nature and their unique circumstances should be considered in a court of law.

The idea of fixed punishments seemingly offers fairness and consistency. The judicial system is not and can never be perfect, and having consistent penalties can help to eliminate judicial biases based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. These biases manifest in our current day as the disproportionate impact prison sentences and financial penalties have on minorities and low-income populations in various countries, and having consistent sentencing is meant to alleviate these problems. In addition, proponents also argue that it ensures fairness and creates a strong deterrent. If, they argue, people know the exact punishment for the crime beforehand, they are less likely to commit such an offense. On the surface, standardized penalties are therefore supposed to reduce criminal offenses and uphold justice.

Nevertheless, there is a reason mitigating and aggravating circumstances exist: a one-size-fits-all approach to justice is often unjust. Crimes are not committed in a vacuum; instead, they are the result of complex interactions between motives, intentions, emotions, and mental states - critical factors that fixed punishments would fail to address. Someone stealing to feed their family getting the same penalties as another stealing to satisfy their greed should be considered as a grave miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, inflexible penalties also hinder rehabilitation, as there would be no incentives for offenders to reform. If the sentence is fixed anyway, good behaviour in prison does not net them reduced or commuted sentences, or otherwise affect their time in prison. Thus, this rigidity can lead to increased recidivism, counteracting any deterrent effects it may have.

In conclusion, the legal and judicial process is designed to consider circumstances for a reason, and removing judges’ abilities to adjust penalties depending on mitigating and aggravating factors not only undermines their authority and expertise, but also fails to accomplish the system’s intended purpose: upholding justice.

(350 words, band ~8)