Regarding the first question YES, of course the punishment should be different from crime to another.And at the beginning let us have a look of the types of the crime. As a crime we have the following: misdemeanor,offense,fault and tress-pass. So we can't treat all of them as one level of crime. For example at traffic law there is many kind of law breaking. Starting with not using the seat belt,park on NO PARKING area,over-speed,drunk driver,cross the signal when it's red and last but not least reckless driving. So on all the above situations it's not logic to be one and the same punishment for all of them. So each situation should have suitable punishment. Here I should mention that the target or the goal of the punishment or the law it's not always to punish or penalize the wrong person. It's to help him not to do it again and it's a message to the others not to do the same. So let us be agree that the punishment "is a mean not an end". This applies for all kind of punishment. Whether at business issue or at family issue or even attempted murder. From the last word "ATTEMPTED MURDER" I can answer the second question by "YES".....!!!!!!!. Many people will say OHH!!! But of course "YES".. because if somebody will be attacked by someone he has the full right to defend him self. Or if somebody attack son of any body else he has the right to defend or/and protect his son. Again each case must have special way. For example if some one try to steel my wallet it's not like or similar to someone wants to kill me. So the reaction must be proportion and educated to the first action. Finally the answer for both questions are YES
In my opinion there must exist different punishments for all the wide varaity of crime that every day are comitted all around the world. The punishments may be from little fines to death penalty. Crime must be punished according to their seriousness and how much damaged have caused to the comunity. More serious crimes must be given more severe punishment. We can not treat them as the same offense when someone commits murder than some who is hungry and steal food. Punishments should fit the crime. I think than a crime sometimes can be justificated for example when someone treats another person with violance the person has the rights to defend and respond in any way to save his integrity . Always when the life of a person is in danger the crime must be justified.
Of course, I totally agree with different punishments for different crimes. If you were in inmate’s shoes you wouldn’t like to pay for a robber as same as for murdering. Moreover, would you like to stay your whole life for a over-speed driving with someone that committed rape? I guess not. Also, I can understand a child stealing food from a supermarket than die on the streets hungry. It’s completely sad, however, I’d dare do as well.
Judges have different opinions when they judge a offense, but general rules have to be created to punish offenders. That’s why different crimes have different punishments because if they don’t, judges would incriminate people differently in many cases. Otherwise, not all of penalties result in prison, there are many others, such as: community service, fines and, in extreme cases at certain countries, capital punishment for capital crimes. One penalty don’t exclude each other, you can be punish by two or more. For example, sexual assault is penalized by prison and fines, and it depends on the aggravations.
Second, delints can be justified but never ignored. For example, a murder can be justified as an accident, a revenge or a self-defense. However, it doesn’t mean that your reason will exclude the penalty. Whatever is the offense, it has to be penalized. We can understand all the reasons that took a person to commit a crime, but we can’t just turn our backs to what happened. Crimes are a cause and effect thing, someone suffered and someone committed, and the responsible have to be guilty.
Definitively yes. I totally agree with my classmates and I think it is important that there are different punishments appropriate for different crimes. There is no way of consider a murder just as theft or for example not stopping at a red traffic light than driving while drunk even cause the same consequences. Each circumstance should be studied carefully, because this is the purpose of justice system. Everybody has the right to a fair and equitable justice process. The current problem is that sometimes and in some countries it is not as it would have to be, and also the law is not equal for everyone. In many cases, wealthy people have more facilities because of power or money. As regards as the second question, I also think that some crime can be justified. The most obvious example is if anyone attacks you, you try to defend yourself. You are trying to survive. Your intention is not injuring or killing to the attacker, you only want to survive. Indirectly, the other person forces you to act like that. That is the reason.
If we don't have various punishments, our society can't exist because a lot of crimes happens every day. Then I think basically it needs the different punishments for each crimes. However, it shouldn’t be complicated too much. I show the reason below.
In my country, we have many punishments in order to apply to crimes. It seems to be useful. We have many ways of punishments so that we consider the crime critically and logically. But it is not perfect. There is contradiction that caused false accusation for people. In terms of juvenile law, actually it isn’t always applied to all children. Even if the child commit a murder, they are protected by that law. It means that rarely are they judged as death punishment; for your information, my country has capital punishment. I don’t discuss about if death punishment is necessary or not because it may miss the point of the argument. Anyway, it is unfair that the capital punishment doesn’t work for children. I understand the reason. It is said that children are too immature to determine what is good or bad thing. However, I disagree with it. Some children can estimate good and bad thing as adults and some children carry out heinous crime. On the other hand, the juvenile law says that law is no less the law than children is children. I mean many kinds of laws are sometimes inapplicable. But people believe in law and obey it because it seems to be logical and perfect.
In short, different punishments should be appropriate different crimes, and at the same time it should be thought definitely each crimes.
Regarding the first question YES, of course the punishment should be different from crime to another.And at the beginning let us have a look of the types of the crime.
ReplyDeleteAs a crime we have the following:
misdemeanor,offense,fault and tress-pass. So we can't treat all of them as one level of crime. For example at traffic law there is many kind of law breaking. Starting with not using the seat belt,park on NO PARKING area,over-speed,drunk driver,cross the signal when it's red and last but not least reckless driving.
So on all the above situations it's not logic to be one and the same punishment for all of them. So each situation should have suitable punishment. Here I should mention that the target or the goal of the punishment or the law it's not always to punish or penalize the wrong person. It's to help him not to do it again and it's a message to the others not to do the same. So let us be agree that the punishment "is a mean not an end".
This applies for all kind of punishment. Whether at business issue or at family issue or even attempted murder. From the last word "ATTEMPTED MURDER" I can answer the second question by "YES".....!!!!!!!. Many people will say OHH!!!
But of course "YES".. because if somebody will be attacked by someone he has the full right to defend him self. Or if somebody attack son of any body else he has the right to defend or/and protect his son. Again each case must have special way. For example if some one try to steel my wallet it's not like or similar to someone wants to kill me. So the reaction must be proportion and educated to the first action.
Finally the answer for both questions are YES
Awesome job Mr. Saleh! You explained your point of view very well and even used specific details and examples to support your opinion. Very well done!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there must exist different punishments for all the wide varaity of crime that every day are comitted all around the world. The punishments may be from little fines to death penalty. Crime must be punished according to their seriousness and how much damaged have caused to the comunity. More serious crimes must be given more severe punishment. We can not treat them as the same offense when someone commits murder than some who is hungry and steal food. Punishments should fit the crime. I think than a crime sometimes can be justificated for example when someone treats another person with violance the person has the rights to defend and respond in any way to save his integrity . Always when the life of a person is in danger the crime must be justified.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I totally agree with different punishments for different crimes. If you were in inmate’s shoes you wouldn’t like to pay for a robber as same as for murdering. Moreover, would you like to stay your whole life for a over-speed driving with someone that committed rape? I guess not. Also, I can understand a child stealing food from a supermarket than die on the streets hungry. It’s completely sad, however, I’d dare do as well.
ReplyDeleteJudges have different opinions when they judge a offense, but general rules have to be created to punish offenders. That’s why different crimes have different punishments because if they don’t, judges would incriminate people differently in many cases. Otherwise, not all of penalties result in prison, there are many others, such as: community service, fines and, in extreme cases at certain countries, capital punishment for capital crimes. One penalty don’t exclude each other, you can be punish by two or more. For example, sexual assault is penalized by prison and fines, and it depends on the aggravations.
Second, delints can be justified but never ignored. For example, a murder can be justified as an accident, a revenge or a self-defense. However, it doesn’t mean that your reason will exclude the penalty. Whatever is the offense, it has to be penalized. We can understand all the reasons that took a person to commit a crime, but we can’t just turn our backs to what happened. Crimes are a cause and effect thing, someone suffered and someone committed, and the responsible have to be guilty.
#CristinaRepresa
ReplyDeleteDefinitively yes. I totally agree with my classmates and I think it is important that there are different punishments appropriate for different crimes. There is no way of consider a murder just as theft or for example not stopping at a red traffic light than driving while drunk even cause the same consequences. Each circumstance should be studied carefully, because this is the purpose of justice system. Everybody has the right to a fair and equitable justice process. The current problem is that sometimes and in some countries it is not as it would have to be, and also the law is not equal for everyone. In many cases, wealthy people have more facilities because of power or money.
As regards as the second question, I also think that some crime can be justified. The most obvious example is if anyone attacks you, you try to defend yourself. You are trying to survive. Your intention is not injuring or killing to the attacker, you only want to survive. Indirectly, the other person forces you to act like that. That is the reason.
If we don't have various punishments, our society can't exist because a lot of crimes happens every day. Then I think basically it needs the different punishments for each crimes. However, it shouldn’t be complicated too much. I show the reason below.
ReplyDeleteIn my country, we have many punishments in order to apply to crimes. It seems to be useful. We have many ways of punishments so that we consider the crime critically and logically. But it is not perfect. There is contradiction that caused false accusation for people. In terms of juvenile law, actually it isn’t always applied to all children. Even if the child commit a murder, they are protected by that law. It means that rarely are they judged as death punishment; for your information, my country has capital punishment. I don’t discuss about if death punishment is necessary or not because it may miss the point of the argument. Anyway, it is unfair that the capital punishment doesn’t work for children. I understand the reason. It is said that children are too immature to determine what is good or bad thing. However, I disagree with it. Some children can estimate good and bad thing as adults and some children carry out heinous crime. On the other hand, the juvenile law says that law is no less the law than children is children. I mean many kinds of laws are sometimes inapplicable. But people believe in law and obey it because it seems to be logical and perfect.
In short, different punishments should be appropriate different crimes, and at the same time it should be thought definitely each crimes.