Reply to this discussion post: Write an paragraph:

I take on various different perspectives to this question. I think it is a mix of the severity of the crime, the crime itself, and the underlying causes the precipitated the offense. For instance, if someone stole from me because they had no money and needed that because they weren't getting by, I would want some repercussion for their actions, but ultimately, I would just want them to get help and give me my stuff back. However, if someone were to take a life from me, something that can't just be given back, I think harsher sentences are necessary. I'm also of the mindset that sexual assaults are the most heartless actions a person can make and I think those who are guilty of them should get the harshest sentence possible since they took something that can never have true closure. I like to believe that I have a fairly humanitarian perspective when it comes to deciding the fate of others' lives, but I think that crimes should be assessed by how cruel and unnecessary they are. There are many reasons why people offend, so I think many variables should be weighed when deciding what happens to them. Obviously, people who are victimized are going to want harsher punishments for offenders when it is themselves being targeted, perhaps this is why it is smart to have an unbiased party make the decisions. That being said, it is important to think about what will make the victim feel safe again and think that justice was served.