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 views and give your own opinion.

There is a difference of opinions on whether measures of punishment should differentiate according to individual cases. While the judicial efficiency that a strict crime-punishment correspondence can bring is considerable, in court it is fairer to consider the specific circumstances and the motivations for committing a crime.

To begin

with, the message sent by matching each crime with a fixed penalty is clear, informing people of the foreseeable results of anti-social behaviours and relieving the judicial departments from endless case reviews and investigations.

Nevertheless

,

such

practice has fatal flaws, assuming that all wrong-doers have bad intentions and creating an image of perfect victims,

this

approach is unable to bring justice to rightful defence.

For example

, in

such

a system, someone who accidentally killed the assaulter in a wrestle will be regarded as guilty and

thus

suffer punishment, which is not only unfair but

also

unmerciful.

On the contrary

, other people deem it reasonable to take into account the individualities when deciding on the cases, an argument with which I personally agree. The

first

reason is that it solves the problem of the former method.

Besides

, even for the same crime of the same level of seriousness, differentiating points on their motivations can make big differences.

For instance

, beating someone up because he or she assaulted a lady is not the same as submitting someone to physical violence in order to bully them To sum up, fixing crimes with punishing measures can be quick and cost-saving, but to bring true justice to society, it is better to fully consider all aspects of individual cases before making decisions.