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.

People have different views about whether or not punishments for crimes should be fixed.

Although

there are some advantages of fixed punishments, I would argue that it is better to judge each crime individually. There are some good arguments for having one

punishment

for each crime.

This

system ensures that each member of society knows and understands the consequences of committing any crime. It is a fair system, and it leaves people with no doubt that breaking the law is not tolerated. At the same time, it is much easier for judges and lawyers when there is a clear rule dictating how each

offender

should be sentenced.

For example

, if someone is found guilty of stealing, the judge will simply follow the rules and apply the appropriate

punishment

. Despite the above arguments, I believe that the context of any criminal act should be taken into account when sentencing an

offender

.

This

means that the judge should consider the details of each particular case before deciding on the appropriate

punishment

.

For example

, a person who steals something from a shop for the first time should not be treated in the same way as a repeat

offender

who has been caught shoplifting many times before. It would be sensible to give the first-time

offender

a small

punishment

,

such

as a fine,

while

the repeat

offender

may be sent to prison. In conclusion, it seems to me that a mature and humane legal system would be flexible rather than fixed in terms of how decisions about punishments are made.