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.

A certain proportion of citizens presume that punishments must be decided priorly for all types of crimes. On contrary, other parts suggest that the conditions leading to do a violation

such

as circumstances and motivation should

also

be given consideration while making a judgement. In my opinion, I agree with the

second

statement.

To begin

with, prefixing the same punishment for the same violation would have few advantages. Due to the fact that it would same time in the court and make the guilty prone to the verdict at a rapid phase.

Moreover

,

this

kind of law would make people think twice to commit a felony. Which would ultimately bring the felony rate down. To illustrate it with an example, Dubai is the most prominent country which has very extreme levels of torture to the guilty and makes judgement swiftly. Molestation in Dubai would be given high priority and give a verdict within the consecutive day itself.

Thus

, it is considered being advantageous.

On the other hand

, there are major advantages to the later method as well. The primary and foremost advantage of considering the influencing factors which led to lawlessness would give the person the benefit of the doubt because not every violation is done purposefully. To explain it in detail, let me consider an example. Though killing a person is incorrect, Russia has still passed a new law where women could kill a man if he tries to cause harm in any way.

Furthermore

,

this

would be considered as a fundamental right of a person to one’s safety. To sum up, it is the most beneficial practice. In my perception, the considering circumstances methodology though has few drawbacks is still has immense benefits to a great extent because it would not treat the act of self-defence as inappropriate and gave the innocent a chance.

Consequently

, there are still chances for it to be misused which has to be given due diligence. In conclusion, both methodologies have few merits and demerits, if properly utilized they could work hand in hand.