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.
In the past, the punishments for different types of offenses were fixed and the specific circumstances for any crime were not taken into account; even today this scenario hasn’t changed much. Looking at this constancy, one must analyse whether fixed penalties are better than flexible ones. In my opinion, having fixed punishments is always better to fight against crimes.
There are many advantages of keeping an unchangeable punishment for a certain type of crime. Firstly, people are aware of the painful sentences as they see outcomes of similar wrongdoings in the society. As a result, they will never attempt to commit a crime as they might face severe consequences. For example, Saudi Arabia is consistently ranked among the top countries with low crime rate and its fixed punishment policies have a major role in this success. Secondly, fixed retributions make court proceedings faster as the judge does not have to decide the punishments to be given. Consequently, justice is not delayed, and the court will not have pending cases.
On the other hand, some people argue that laws should be adjustable. They believe that the gravity of all the crimes is not the same, and a person may commit a crime in unavoidable situations like to defend oneself from a robber some dangerous criminals. Thus, such people may suffer unnecessarily at the hands of the law and may repeat the crime just to seek revenge against the law. However, wrongly charged people can always defend themselves in the court trials by seeking help from good lawyers or submitting proof in support of their cases. As a result, justice will be served fairly only after listening to all the hearings.
To summarise, fixed punishments can deter people from doing illegal activities and ensure that justice is served on time. Although circumstantial sentences might convict innocents, they always have a fair chance to prove themselves honest with the help of proper evidence and legal advisors. So, I believe fixed punishments for each type of crime work the best.
The writer has appropriately followed all instructions given, and developed them as well. He or she maintains smooth flow of ideas and minute grammatical mistakes (if any) made the reading and comprehension of the essay that much easier. Also, the writer exhibits effective use of words and left no room for errors.
“On the other hand, some people argue that laws should be adjustable. They believe that the gravity of all the crimes is not the same and a person may commit a crime in unavoidable situations like to defend oneself from a robber some dangerous criminals.”
The writer could have said
“On the other hand, some might argue about the unfairness of the fixed law towards those who may have committed a crime in unavoidable situations, like defending oneself from a potential threat.”
“Thus, such people may suffer unnecessarily at the hands of the law and may repeat the crime just to seek revenge against law.”
The repetition of the word ‘law’ is redundant since the context has been consistent since the previous sentence, as well as the first use in the sentence. Hence, the sentence could also be framed like:
“Such people may unnecessarily suffer at the hands of the law – even leading some to commit crimes just to seek revenge against the system.”