Some people believe that there should be a fixed punishment for all types of crime. Others feel that the circumstances of an offence should be taken into account when deciding on a punishment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In contemporary society, an enduring debate regarding the manner in which crimes should be punished is becoming a prominent segment. In fact, each and every misconduct should be given some sort of punishment. Some people strongly recommend fixed penalties for misdeeds, meanwhile, others insist the bases behind every felony must be taken into account when granting retribution. Both views are approached by

this

essay and subjected to a thorough analysis.

Firstly

, any crime is an intentional act which leads to detrimental consequences that should be imposed with an inevitable penalty.

For instance

, people will be intimidated by committing wrongdoings when permanent disciplining methods are introduced. In essence, criminality is an adverse aspect that should not be treated lightly.

Hence

, the argument for imposing fixed castigation can be justified deliberately.

On the contrary

, every crime possesses a different background that motivated an individual to transgress. As an example, killing a person as an act of defending oneself from danger cannot be considered willful murder.

Furthermore

, the purpose of doing an offence must be given consideration in determining the way of penalizing a person.

Thus

, the premise that implies the rationale of executing a criminal activity should be allocated significance when punishing someone. In brief, the two aspects of the argument concerning the final verdict on retribution possess strong evidence. From my perspective, the motive behind every misconduct must be thoroughly scrutinized prior to concluding the castigation.

Therefore

, necessary punishments should be given after distinguishing the ground for the occurrence of the crime, without allocating all misdeeds to the same degree of intensity.