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

Because of the bad economic situation

that is

especially threatening the poor societies, the increasing possibility of crimes can be visible. In

such

a case, there are two ideas about the punishment for a felon; fixed penalties or modifiable fines. In the following, I am going to discuss both points of view and elucidate my own opinion. On the one hand, fixed penalties can act as hindering factors to some extent; as proof, as far as I know, many years ago in Saudi Arabia was the hand of people who condemn to a robbery cut regardless that they steal a packet of cigarettes or a bag full of gold;

therefore

,

thus

retributions could decrease the rate of theft in that country, particularly for minor thefts.

On the other hand

, a fixed fine for each type of crime can be crucial too in that the implementation of the death penalty for all types of murder,

for instance

, unintentional murder, intentional killing of a person, and mass killing is not only fair but

also

can pave the way for bigger guilt.

Accordingly

,

this

deed can devastate justice. In my opinion, a judge should punish a culprit regarding the circumstance and the level of perpetration.

This

action can bring justice both to the felon and the complainant.

For example

, it is so logical to be two or more disparate retributions for robbery due to the level of dangerousness and aggressiveness of that crime, as well as the value of things that have been stolen. In conclusion, regarding the kind of fine for each crime, and its changeability or not, two notions have been clarified, and as the

second

notion seems more reasonable, I chose the latter idea.