Some people believe that there should be fixed punishment for each type of crime. Others argue that the circumstances of an individual’s crimes and the motivation for committing it should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both views, give your opinions.

In

this

contemporary world, it is argued that for all types of crime, there should be a fixed judgment,

while

others believe that the circumstances should be taken into consideration. In

this

essay, I will discuss both these views and try to draw some conclusions. On the one hand, for all types of crime, one sentence must be imposed. The main reason for

this

statement is the fact of flexibility for the state.

That is

, it will focus on the same type of punishment, and put criminals in prison as quickly as possible since

this

will help to preserve the lives of society. And, of course, the law is the same for everyone, and

therefore

, a fixed sentence is vital.

On the other hand

, others say that all facts should be taken into consideration. In my opinion,

such

politics is more fair. Specifically, if a person stole something, he should not bear the same punishment as the criminal received for premeditated murder.

Moreover

, if someone killed another one in self-defensе,

this

circumstance should be taken into account, and a more lenient sentence must be given.

Also

, people simply had no choice; they needed money or food (to feed their families,

for instance

). And, of course, if people committed crimes through negligence (without knowing it) they must not be guilty.

For example

, they became victims of a fraudulent scheme and transferred money to them, taking it from ordinary residents.

In other words

, judges must consider all the facts. In conclusion,

while

fixed punishment is important as it makes the government's work easier, I would

also

believe that all circumstances should be considered.