Some people believe that there should be a fixed punishment 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 of these two views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Certain people argue that every type of fault should be fixed punishment. But, others deem that 

firstly

 listen the purpose of behind the caper 

then

 deciding the beating. In my

first

view, depravity is a bigger problem in the  now. Some people, for completing their needs, they do abomination.

Such

as, robbery, theft and many more.

Moreover

, if the  government allows

this

rule infraction may be reduced and criminals will think twice before committing any breach.

For instance

, in Saudi Arabia, if people do any type of depravity in

this

place. The government would only give capital punishment. Because, the main object of

this

law is reducing the infraction from

this

place and due to

this

rule crime has decreased in

this

country. In my

second

view, Before giving any types of sanction. The government should see the motivation of behind the offence.

Then

, they should decide  some about criminals lumps.

For example

, some time a man going to somewhere in the middle night and someone has attacked on him with the gun and man has

also

hit him with something to protecting himself. After that, suddenly attacker is a die.

This

kind of situation law cannot say it is murder. Because they have done

this

murder for saving himself.

Therefore

, these types of cases authority should see

first

what is the region at the back of the felony. Afterwards, they should choose his sanction. To summarize, I think 

first

of all nation authorities have to check the motive at the rear of the scandal.

Then

, they should take some action about criminals lumps.