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.

It is widely argued that whether or not the punishments of crime should be fixed. Some people believe that some factors need to be considered while deducing the punishments. I agree with

this

idea. I admit that there are some advantages of fixed punishments. One of them is efficient. No one can escape the trial from the law once they break it. As the discipline for law-breaker is clear, it will not be open to abuse.

Therefore

, nobody will doubt the trial is unfair as the punishment do not include a subjective judgement. Deterrent effects are another advantage. People know the result of crime, they will reconsider their acts. It can reduce the number of criminal so the society will become more and more peaceful.

In contrast

to the fixed punishment, sentence after taking other factors,

for example

, considering motivation and circumstances, gives more tolerant to offenders who are not on purpose.

For instance

, a man hurt others for self-defence purpose, we should not see him as a murder since he was protecting his rights. For those offers, punishment can be replaced by community service or rehabilitation.

In addition

, it can reduce government's stress on the budget since it costs a lot of taxes to build jails and pay police salaries. In conclusion,

although

fixed punishments bring some benefits

such

as deterrent effects and high efficiency, considering all of the factors comprehensively before sentencing is encouraged because it is not only fair but

also

taxes-saving.

Furthermore

, it is acceptable to the public.