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 punishm

In the new millennium, the number of criminal activities is increasing rapidly and to minimize this, different societies have different methods to punish someone committing a crime. For example, one way is to fix penalties for each type of crime.

On the one hand, although fixing punishments has several advantages, on my reckoning, it's sometimes disadvantageous. Having considered the benefits of fixing punishments, we can deduce that the crime rates decline because a guilty fears of the punishment that is considered for him or her if he or she commits that. For instance, in Saudi Arabia murder is considered a major offense. To be more specific, if an individual kill someone, it will result in hanging a murderer in the public area. In addition, it could be effective for small towns which don't have any courts and sometimes they enact some strict laws that are not justifiable if they don’t' have fixed punishments considered for their country.

On the other hand, it goes without saying that when the circumstances of an individual crime or motivation of committing it is not taken into account, penalty is similar for someone killing a person and someone who kills, for example, 2 or more people. Secondly, the method of not having fixed punishments lets people know that crime is nothing more than a activity which have a specific penalty. Finally, when, for instance, a punishment of robbery is considered three months in prison, a robber prefer to commit and go to prison just for a few months.

In conclusion, albeit there should be clear punishments for each type of crime, in my personal point of view, it should not be fixed because its future side effects outweigh its momentary merits.