"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 the proportionality in punishments for lawbreakers. In my opinion, while giving fixed punishments strengthened the prevention from

further

crimes happening, I firmly believe that the latter view clarifies the corresponding relationship between a crime and a punishment. On the one hand, it is clear that giving the same sentences in one case category is a quicker result-oriented court decision, which demonstrates that a severe trial could be even for minor crimes.

Nevertheless

, it is unfair to some criminals who may not deserve the given punishments.

For example

, robbing a convenience store would not deserve the same punishment as robbing a bank since the violation's degree is not as severe.

Consequently

,

although

it helps prevent people from attempting to commit a wrongdoing, hardly can it avoid sentence unbalance.

On the other hand

, it would ensure that the criminal receives a just sentence according to the circumstance, motivation, and criminal record, following the range of sentencing guidelines. There is no doubt that each case has its factor and causes various consequences.

For instance

, considering murder might be a mental problem patient or a self-defence person, a robbery for feeding family differs from robbing for profit, the judge can decide to fit the proper punishment to each case.

Therefore

, only the proportionality in sentencing reflects the justice of the law. In conclusion, I believe that the fixed penalties could be highly beneficial in decreasing the crime rate.

However

, proving justice is to give the appropriate sentencing based on every aspect and factor of the different cases.