Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others. However, argue that circumstances of an individual crime and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account. Discuss both side and give your opinion.

A

crime

is the result of series of an event which either happened in the heat of the moment or is well pre-planned. The judicial system of every country investigates before sentencing appropriate

punishment

to the culprit. Few people feel that every

crime

must have a pre-determined

punishment

.

However

, I disagree with

this

opinion and will discuss both sides of the coin in

this

essay. Pre-determined

punishment

helps in creating fear in those who think of committing a

crime

. Thereby, reducing the

crime

rate, and accelerating the delivery of justice to those who are affected.

For example

, if hang till death becomes the only

punishment

in case of raping a woman, no one will dare to commit

such

a

crime

out of fear.

Therefore

,

this

idea seems quite logical and sensible to give it a thought.

However

, people argue that every

crime

is not done on purpose. Certain unavoidable circumstances force a law-abiding citizen to violate the law and gets charged in criminal proceedings.

For instance

, a person in his efforts to save an attack on himself had to kill the attacker in self-defence. Though he had to murder to save his life, he still is considered a murderer.

Hence

, with pre-determined punishments, he has to serve the

punishment

, which defeats the purpose of justice.

Hence

, it is really important to take the circumstance factor into account To sum up, taking into account the arguments on both sides, though fixed

punishment

seems more logical, but not considering circumstances under which the

crime

happened, will dilute the respect for justice.

Therefore

, the pre-determination of

punishment

for every

crime

does not hold good.