It would be quicker if there was the same punishment for the same crimes, but some people think this is not a good policy because circumstances should be considered.

On the one hand, for some, standardised penalties for similar crimes could enhance procedural efficiency. For instance, if an individual and or a company is found guilty of tax evasion or licensing violations, they should be subjected to the same statutory monetary penalty for offences falling within the same legal category, regardless of personal background or social status. This would eliminate subjective judicial discretion and enhance procedural consistency.

On the other hand, another group argues that decision-making should be context-sensitive, as punishment should reflect intent and severity. To clarify, some offences are driven by desperation and are not premeditated. To illustrate, many criminals resort to crimes, such as shoplifting or burglary, out of economic necessity, taking only what is essential for subsistence. Applying uniform penalties to economically motivated petty offenders and large-scale financial criminals would undermine the principle of proportionality.

From my perspective, a balanced judicial framework may integrate standardised sentencing guidelines alongside judicial discretion. In the context of low-level financial offences, standardised penalties may be defensible, given the relatively limited scale of harm involved. Similarly, traffic violations such as crossing a line or entering a restricted area may warrant uniform penalties. By contrast, should such infractions result in injury, the offender may be subject to aggravated penalties, including custodial sanctions. Nevertheless, where the offence is intrinsically grave, a calibrated assessment of contextual determinants is indispensable to uphold judicial equity. The most relevant example would be murders. Although homicide constitutes a severe offence, judicial authorities must assess whether the act was motivated by malice aforethought or committed in lawful self-defence. This is because premeditated violence signals a greater risk of repeated offending, while self-defensive conduct is typically situational.

To conclude, despite divergent perspectives on penal systems, I am convinced that minor infractions may reasonably be codified within standardised penalty structures unless aggravated by life-threatening consequences, whereas intrinsically grave offences demand nuanced, circumstance-sensitive adjudication.