Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

In the court, judges has right to give punishment to defender. While there are many people believe that penalty should be fixed for each type of crime. I argue that circumstances and motivation of sinner should be considered by judges in deciding the sentences.

Many people say that sentences for criminal should be strictly enforced for each kind of criminality because of many reasons. First of all, the crooks will think twice to make same mistake if they know what the consequences are. For example, reckoning for murderer is fixed to be twenty years in jail which is not short and easy to be faced. Secondly, fixed retribution will ease the judges to impose law as there is standard which should be taken for giving penalty to the crook. Thirdly, If the punishment is fixed, it will decrease corruption practice which is probably done by crook’s colleague or company where criminal work.

On the contrary, I believe that there are some conditions should be taken into account by judges related to crook’s environment and intention behind the vice. The first condition, there are many delinquents who do delinquency in unintended way. For instance, when parents punish their child, unintentionally the child is died because of their action. The second situation, sometimes dangerous environment fosters subjects to do crime for preventing them to be victim. For example, there are men have commitment to rape woman, yet the woman finds scissors nearby and directly murder the unlucky man.

For the statement mentioned above regarding applying the law to the culprit, It seems to me that the judges should measure the environment as well as motivation for doing crime.