Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, argue that 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.

It is considered by many that it should be a fixed punishment for every sort of crimes.

On the other hand

, some people believe that the situation of a personal crime, and the reason for committing it, must always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. On one hand, if the government sets fixed punishments for all the crimes than the criminals would know already all the bad consequences of their violence behaviour. Maybe that would stop the criminals committing some crimes.

For example

, if the burglar is aware of the result of his deed, he won't dare to do it, because, maybe that makes him think for a

second

about his family and

also

the people that he is going to hurt.

Hence

, knowing the result of the actions

is

Suggestion

has been

always helpful and that helps the society to avoid doing something out of the rules.

On the other hand

, arranged punishments are not always fare for some circumstances.

For instance

, if a rubber rubs something, the law would punish him with a specific penalty, but

this

sentence is maybe not fair because the rubber decided at the very

last

moment to put that thing back and, in the mean time, somebody witnessed the action of the rubber and already called the police. In conclusion, it is hard to be a judge and the responsibility up to you to make a correct decision, but, personally, I believe the judge should always consider all the aspect and

then

not take a bad decision.