Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others think that the circumstances of a crime, and the reason for committing it should be considered when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both views.

It has been argued by some, that

law

should fix harsh penalties for each crime, regardless of the factors leading to committing them. While others reject

this

claim, as they consider the judges' job is found to announce fair judgment for each case separately according to the given proofs and facts for each case. The advocates of the

first

claim stress the point of community safety, as they consider excluding criminals from societies for any crime would guarantee safety for everyone. In the sense that,if

people

were aware that lawyers could not help them to escape loopholes in the

law

and they may face long years sentences behind bars they would not participate in any action to break the

law

. an example to illustrate

this

point is that many studies have shown that the

first

reason young

people

give for the question, ( what prevents you from committing a crime?), was the jail.

in other words

,

people

are afraid of spending their life in jail with other murderers. The opponents of

this

opinion insist, that sometimes

people

could sign fake documents or get involved in work against the

law

because of a lack of knowledge. They

also

highlight that some could kill in self-defence or by mistake .

Therefore

, judges are entitled to give them fair punishment as long as they did not endanger others or they were not re-offenders of crimes.

For example

, a huge number of

people

around the world were not sent to jail because the judge and the jury found them innocent. to conclude, the aforementioned points clearly show that, the key factor to enforce the

law

is by finding firm punishments for those who introvok

law

.

However

, it

also

stresses the importance of judgment to effectively apply the

law

fairly and honestly.