some people believe that there should be fixed punishment for each type of crime and the motivation for commiting it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Human beings are considered social animals, without the rules, these animals could go beyond the boundaries, So there should be punishment for each type of that crime and

also

for the thought that emerged for committing it. Is it necessary to take

this

into account

while

dealing with criminals? In the following ,paragraphs I will describe these statements

along with

relevant examples. On the one hand, it is necessary to punish

according to

the level of criminal activity carried out by the individuals. Doing so can only decrease the number of unlawful people in society. The individuals will think of their families, siblings and friends behind them.

For instance

, if I was caught stealing a simple item and charged with burglary, I will be punished. With that little unlawful action, if I was taken to prison, I would be ashamed. With that ,strictness there are chances for a decrease in unlawful actions.

On the other hand

, chances of increasing social issues concerning retribution for the thinking of committing crimes. For ,example if someone has taken something from your bag, later he realises and brings you back ,

however

Add a comma

,however

show examples

you report it to the police thinking it's a crime.

Then

he will be somehow charged with burglary. These actions could lead to the increment of social offenders rather than harmony. As he might feel it is of no use being come back to a good people.

To conclude

, disciplining a culprit with an appropriate law could bring harmony to society by reducing offenders. So

therefore

one should be punished for his misdemeanour.