Some people believe that there should be fixed punishment 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

Whether should we fix punishments for each type of crime or consider other factors, such as the circumstances of the motivation, while deciding on the punishments? It is really a complex question and different people hold different opinions.

Some people insist that each type of crime should have its own fixed punishments. Obviously, there are several advantages to do so. First of all, if we set definite punishments for each type of crime ahead, then the process of judgment would be efficient and hence the judgment would cost less. In other words, the victims and the criminals would quickly know the judgment and receive deserved compensation and punishment respectively. In addition, the fixed punishments can act as a warning. That is to say common people know well the results if they commit a crime and thus they would think twice when they want to violate the laws.

However, other people claim that it is essential to take into account that what is the condition that a crime happens and why people commit crimes. The predominant reason for this is because some offenders do not intend to commit crimes; instead, it is probably that they do so out of protecting themselves from hurting by others. In such condition, the criminals should be given less serious punishments or even free of punishments.

According to me, it is advisable to consider the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it. Although taking these into consideration would cost more time and money, the judgment could be fairer and the society would be more harmonious.