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 whether or not

punishment

should be fixed for each

crime

.

Although

there are some advantages of fixed punishments, I believe that it is better to judge each

crime

individually. On the one hand, there are some arguments for having specific punishments for each

crime

.

First

of all, it is easy to apply to every criminal activity.

Besides

, it is a fair justice system, and everyone could be aware of the

punishment

so

people

would be scared of committing crimes.

As a result

, fixed punishments could deter criminal activities. Dubai law takes as an example that if anyone commits robbery their hand should be cut down

that is

why there no one can have that much courage for any kind of robbery. And top of that, processing times of court trials and cases would be reduced since there is a pre-defined penalty.

On the other hand

, my writings argue that the circumstances of a

crime

and the criminal motivation should influence the

punishment

.

Such

as, murder committed as an act of self-defence is not the same as murder committed to

terrorise

Change the verb form

terrorising

show examples

people

.

Similarly

, a father breaking the driving rule to save her daughter's life at the hospital is not the same as a professional

crime

.

Finally

, in emergency cases, if

people

break the rules, the

punishment

should not be strict compared to fixed judgment. In conclusion, despite the advantages of fixed penalty, it seems to me that each

crime

should be judged taking both the circumstances and motivation into account.