Some people believe that there should b fixed punishments for each type of crome 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 Di

Punishment has always been an integral part of judgement against crime. For committing different sorts of crimes, a group of people think that penalties should be predetermined, while the rest of the people prefer to have considerations regarding individual's situation, reasons for which they commit crimes before bringing them under punishment. In my opinion, I believe that both of these views are logical and both sides can be applicable in different circumstances.

According to some, prior setting of punishments are crucial to ensure justice and prevent further offenses. They argue about this with a view to punishing the culprits so that seeing them others can also be careful and cautious about doing an illegal and offensive activity. Moreover, they think that if the criminals do not have any fixed boundaries, they will act as their suit will, which will be extremely harmful, destructive to a society, for example, if a person knows that violating a
road signal, will pay him a devoid himself from doing so. Along with that, deliberate criminal activities can also be controlled by this method. Otherwise, offenders may not think before making a blunder, if there is no such fear of being punished.

On the other hand, other people always tend to see the criminals from Their perspectives and circumstances under which they make mistakes. Rather than being totally strict with only applying laws and rules, they believe to emphasize on humanity and empathy towards the offenders. Sometimes for example, a person may break the signal for reaching hospital to save a dying patient. In these type of cases, it will not be fair to punish him without even knowing about his urgency. Hence, there should be a kind act of understanding the motivation of and minimize the amount of penalties accordingly.

To conclude, there must be some level of punishments fixed, however this should not be rigid always. I think that a fine line must remain there between giving punishments and considering the criminals own circumstances. May be by not being totally strict, many innocents can be saved.

However, it is a matter of regret that, though self-satisfaction in a task is an inevitable thing for anyone, very few are fortunate enough to get such opportunity. Because of various causes people are sometimes forced to do any kind of duty, even if they are not pleased with it. For instance, my brother-in-law is a banker, but he does not like this at all, still he is continuing because of family pressure and for want of money to run the family. Likewise this case of example, numerous individuals have their own reasons for being involved in unattractive works, sacrificing their happiness, enjoyment and contentment. Another reason why it is not possible to be satisfied with official activities is the working environment (companies' rules, pressures, absence of flexibility). Even though most of the employers desire better quality, opportunity, due to their circumstances, they always cannot have it as they want.

To conclude, peace of mind can not be ignored in any kind of job and it is of great importance. However, not always, everyone have the chance to be contented with their jobs totally, due to some real needs and depending on situations. I strongly think that it is not unrealistic to promote more well-being. If the factors identified above are implemented, then any working condition can be improved and more workers can feel greater degrees of contenment.