Prompt: Many people believe that having a fixed punishment for all crimes is more efficient. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a fixed punishment.

Most of the society has a belief of having a fixed penalty for all offences is more important. It would be an advantage to the public because minor criminals will afraid to do crimes and in the opposite side, major criminals will take that easy. Hence, permanent penalizing is not a solution for the increasing crime wave. This essay will discuss both the negative and positive effects of it. Ċ On one hand, when imposing a common retribution for all offences would be a great solution to prevent the rapidly growing low level crimes. Because of people know the punishment, they will fear to do deletes. Furthermore, it can avoid the novel increasing wrongs in the society. Such as, drug smuggling among the youngsters, stealing and prostitution. As per the factors, the above statement is better to control the misdeeds within the community. Ċ On the other hand, this method is not suitable for higher level offenders. According to the severity of the wrong, the penalty must be changed. Otherwise, it would be a harm to the public. To illustrate, a criminal who has been a culprit to a murder of a child abuse, obviously, the society is waiting for the highest chastising for that offender. Overall, the culprits never stop their wrong behaviours. But with the various sentences, the law can control them. Ċ In conclusion, many people in the community have a positive attitude regarding the rigid penalizing for all wrongs. Although, a few disadvantages of having same penalizing are higher than the advantages.