1. Some people argue that there should be a common
punishment for committing a certain crime for all criminals who carry it out.
On the other hand, others suggest that the conditions under which the criminal
commits a crime should be taken into consideration before deciding the punishment.
How far do you agree or disagree with the arguments presented?
Crime and punishment has been a raging debate since the early days of mankind and to easily resolve the issue would be to attempt a difficult task, the idea that there should be a common and fixed punishment for a crime for all criminals who carry it out may seem reasonable but I opine against it.
All criminals who commit a certain crime have very different backgrounds, reasons and methodologies. It is impossible that the extent of cruelty inflicted on the victim in one instance is exactly the same as in another. The history of the criminal, his or her motives and the way in which the crime is executed have to be taken into account at all times to be able to decide the quantum of punishment. In the absence of this, severe injustice may be done to some criminals while others may be 'let off lightly.
Next, is there ever a possibility of deciding the certainty of a crime, in the first place? For example, are all murders or all robberies equal? When we cannot come to decide the fixed definition of a murder, a robbery and so on, how is it possible to come to a punishment suitable for all instances of the same?
On the other hand, giving a fixed, common punishment for a crime to all the criminals who are found guilty of it could be useful in reducing the judicial hours spent on a case hearing. Also,
In the conclusion, I opine that though the fixed, common punishment for a certain crime looks simpler in practice; we should not implement it at all in view of the reasons given above.
How far do you agree or disagree with the arguments presented?
Crime and punishment has been a raging debate since the early days of mankind and to easily resolve the issue would be to attempt a difficult task, the idea that there should be a common and fixed punishment for a crime for all criminals who carry it out may seem reasonable but I opine against it.
All criminals who commit a certain crime have very different backgrounds, reasons and methodologies. It is impossible that the extent of cruelty inflicted on the victim in one instance is exactly the same as in another. The history of the criminal, his or her motives and the way in which the crime is executed have to be taken into account at all times to be able to decide the quantum of punishment. In the absence of this, severe injustice may be done to some criminals while others may be 'let off lightly.
Next, is there ever a possibility of deciding the certainty of a crime, in the first place? For example, are all murders or all robberies equal? When we cannot come to decide the fixed definition of a murder, a robbery and so on, how is it possible to come to a punishment suitable for all instances of the same?
On the other hand, giving a fixed, common punishment for a crime to all the criminals who are found guilty of it could be useful in reducing the judicial hours spent on a case hearing. Also,
In the conclusion, I opine that though the fixed, common punishment for a certain crime looks simpler in practice; we should not implement it at all in view of the reasons given above.
Speaking cue cards
Writing topics
Ielts Reading
Ielts books
Download free Ielts books
Hotel in St. Louis, MO - Mapyro
ReplyDeleteFind 밀양 출장안마 the best hotels and motels 원주 출장샵 near St. Louis, 충청북도 출장샵 MO with 남원 출장안마 Mapyro. 5,500-seat Arena 논산 출장마사지 at Mohegan Sun Arena, 713,928, MOhegan Sun Blvd.