Should a criminal's punishment be fit to his attitude (yes) or his crime (no)?

  • Yes, it should fit his attitude.

    In general, the result of a committed crime should be an attempt to rehabilitate the criminal. If the criminal has committed a crime due to passion or need, such as finding someone cheating or needing food to feed kids, then they should be treated differently than someone who is unrepenant.

  • No, a criminal's punishment should not be fit to his attitude

    A criminal's punishment should be fit to the crime that he or she commits, not to the attitude that they have. The crime itself is in direct correlation to the attitude that was displayed in the criminals mind when the crime was committed. This is why a criminal's attitude should not be what determines their punishment.

  • To the crime

    I think that the punishment that a person gets needs to be dependant on the crime that was committed. I think that all that matters when you are determining the punishment is the crime. This is what the person did wrong, and is the only reason they are in trouble.

  • The Crime is indicative of the punishment

    When a person does a crime, there are often circumstances that go along with it. The nature of a crime should dictate at least the majority of the consideration when handing down a sentence. There is some argument for presentation and attitude. However, remorse can be faked, and an attitude can be quelled for the hours it may take to get through a court proceeding.

  • Just pay for the crime

    If you commit a crime and are caught doing so, that is the way you should be charged and punished. If you start charging people based on their attitude, there are going to be a lot of good people being locked up too long and too many bad people let go. Attitude changes quickly and is too easy to manipulate on a moment to moment basis.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.