Some people think a crime should have a fixed punishment, like life for murder, whereas others think you should take the circumstances of the crime into account. What is your viewpoint?

Some parts of the community think that

punishment

for

crimes

should be fixed,

while

others opposite folks said that discipline should be varied

according to

the level and circumstance of the crime. There are many unfortunate reasons for most

crimes

; some unintentionally commit

crimes

. The judge should give a penalty depending on the circumstances of the crime's intro account. I will discuss my point of view in the following analysis.

Firstly

, applying to all types of lawbreakers the same

punishment

is not fair because it is known that every criminal has their reasons.

For example

, if someone kills someone and another one does the same crime. Naturally, both

crimes

have different backgrounds—the first killer maybe he trying to protect himself.

In addition

, if the government has a fixed

punishment

for every type of wrongdoer, it will encourage bad people to do lawlessness.

Moreover

, if a person stoles $100 and the other one stoles $1000, in

this

case, they will have the same punishments because both of them committed the same type of atrocity.

Secondly

, correction

according to

criminal background; in

this

way, it will be fair for everyone.

For instance

, if a hunger stoles food in a shop because he does not have money. In

this

case, it is reasonable why he does that.

Conversely

, if someone does it for fun, the

punishment

should be different. In conclusion, there are reasons and logic behind both views. I believe the judgment and government should be considerable on criminal backgrounds to penalize them.