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.

Some people think that every

crime

committed should receive a penalty,

while

a faction says that the circumstances of the delict should prevail when the sentence is stipulated. Despite the fact that fixed punishments cause a deflection of criminal rates, I argue that the context should always be taken into account, to avoid unfair judgments.

This

essay will discuss both points of view and give the writer's opinion about the subject. On the one hand, fixed penalties for all kinds of crimes may guarantee social order and a reduction in rates of criminality.

This

is because there will always be consequences for irresponsible acts, and people will think twice before going against the law.

For instance

, Thailand has an extremely low drug dealing rate

due to

the life imprisonment sentence associated with

this

kind of

crime

.

On the other hand

, in the cases where the punishment considers the motivation that led to a criminal act, there is a fairer judgment than simply applying a fixed punishment. The relevance of

this

kind of procedure is that sometimes a

crime

is committed under particular circumstances,

such

as hunger, which does not constitute a bad intention. To illustrate, in Les Miserables, written by Victor Hugo, the main character went to prison just because he had stolen bread, which is not acceptable nowadays.

To conclude

,

although

some believe that

a

Remove the article

apply

show examples

punishment should always be applied, despite the

crime

committed, aiming at a

crime

rate decrease, I argue that the reasons for the delict must be considered when defining its sentence, in order to guarantee a fair and honest judgment.