Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Whether having fixed punishments for different kinds of crime has been a long-standing debate.

Consequently

, there are plenty of arguments supporting both for and against viewpoint. In the

further

paragraphs more detail will be brought out. One of the most obvious advantages of fixing the punishment is the lower cost, since there will be not need to hold a long lasting trial, and

therefore

the money spent on the court member can be less, and the time spend on will decrease dramatically, and

this

leads to another upside, the efficiency. Due to the efficiency, deterring crime will be much more effective, because people will know how harsh the punishments are and may possibly reconsider before they act.

However

, to some people, fixed penalties may imply a more injustice system. The difference between killing people out of defence and killing for no reason,

such

as serial killers, is relatively large.

Therefore

the motivation of committing a crime actually matters, and is supposed to take into account. If all the actions are treated in the same way, and those who break the laws share the same punishment, people may start to lose their faith in the justice system, and

this

is a result I believe that most people wanted to avoid. In conclusion, the disadvantages of fixing penalties outweigh the advantages.

Although

the process is way faster, the justice,

on the other hand

is not properly served. And the most important thing is to let people believe the system, so that the harmony of the society can be achieved.