Hi all, it is appreciated that you provide me some feedbacks ! Thank you
Crimes are always a mutual concern of many countries in the World. The significance of designed punishment categorized to relevant crimes also is a centre of discussion among the Governors in proposing legal actions. It is argued that the Government should issue a uniform punishment for each of various crimes; while the others refute that the authority should consider the aspect of individual motives before deciding punishments. Both points of view will be analyzed before a reasoned conclusion is drawn.
Firstly, the advantage of utilizing a standardized punishment for a certain crime would less complicate the regulatory concept which helps increasing understanding of citizens about crimes and their paybacks. For example, in Japan, people are reminded by public advertisements about regular crimes such as thieves, trash throwers and their potential monetary and public service punishments. By that, the citizens may be more aware of illegal actions; thus, that could lead to decrease in crimes. Therefore, it is essential to apply a fixed punishment for each type of crimes.
On the other hand, others argue that each of crime case should be clarified the initiative motive of the criminal in order to determine the degree of crime. It is obvious, for example, that a person who commits culpable homicide, would have an attentive motive, in comparison to the one unintentionally do so. Thus, the consciousness of initiative motivation differs the degree of crime committed in order to determine fair and adequate punishments. Thus, considering a criminal’s motivation certainly contributes to the authority‘s punishment decisions.
After analyzing both opposing points of view, it is agreed that the Government should be specific on investigating causes of action before deciding on punishments. This is hoped that the legal system provides fair judgments on behalf of the ones who deserve a second chance.