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 punishme

Each nation has its own way deciding the punishment that should be taken into one criminal. In Indonesia for example, there are no fixed punishments for each type of crime. There are always options if a perpetrator can not or does not intend to serve a penalty. A perpetrator may pay amount of money then custody period will be shorten depend on the money paid to the authorities. I think that non-fixed punishment will not definitely punish her/him.

Indonesia, a country where corruptors are easily found, is a country with no explicit penalty for any criminal. As a result, a number of corruptors and criminal increase year to year. The Indonesia’s punishment for corruptors are not totally impoverish them yet persuade other people to do corruption because the money that should be returned to the government are far small compared to the corrupted money.

There are many reasons that influence people to do criminal. Poverty and environmental influences are among reasons that motivate somebody to commit it. Therefore, others argue that before deciding on the punishment, the circumstances of an individual crime and the motivation for committing it should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

In my opinion, I believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime by which people will think hundred times before committing it. Because any reasons that motivate people to commit the crime, it remains the same. Criminals such as theft, corruption and rape in the end is always harmful to others and perpetrators are deserved to be punished commensurate with their deeds.